Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

GOSPORT WATER BILL [Lords.

Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — INVADED STATES (GOVERNMENTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the countries in which the Governments of the temporarily-invaded States of Norway, Belgium, Poland and Holland are at present situated?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The Governments of Poland, Norway and the Netherlands are established in the United Kingdom. I am not at the moment in a position to say where the Belgian Government is established.

Mr. Mander: Are not the Government in sympathy with the idea of offering hospitality to the Governments of countries temporarily invaded by the aggressor?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and that has been shown by our attitude to the Governments I have mentioned. We have certainly wished to take a generous and hospitable attitude.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the position in Ethiopia and the possible return of His Majesty Haile Selassie?

Mr. Butler: I can make no special statement beyond saying that there is

evidence of strong potential resistance in Abyssinia.

Mr. Cocks: Do we still recognise the Italian King as Emperor of Ethiopia?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, I have informed the House that we were relieved of all our commitments.

Mr. Cocks: Was not that commitment one of the most fatal the last Government ever made?

Mr. Mander: Would not the Government be prepared to offer full recognition to the Emperor under certain conditions?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN, CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Price: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Japanese Government relative to a stoppage of supplies to China via the Burmese overland route; and what representations have been made to His Majesty's Government on this subject?

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement with regard to the recent Japanese request to the British Government?

Mr. Butler: The Japanese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs communicated to His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo on 24th June a request from the Japanese Government to put a stop to the transportation of arms, ammunition and certain other supplies to the National Government of China via the Burma route and Hong Kong. The reply to this request is at present under consideration.

Mr. Price: Will, the Under-Secretary bear in mind the very bad impression which would be created in the United States if we in any way gave way to the request?

Mr. Butler: That consideration is in mind.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the use of the Yangtse by British and other foreign shipping below and above Nanking?

Mr. Butler: As I informed my hon. Friend on 29th February, the Yangtse is still closed to third Power shipping above Kiangyin, while below this point British vessels continue to operate under certain difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH NATIONAL COMMITTEE.

Mr. Price: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken officially to recognise the French National Committee in London as representing all patriotic Frenchmen desirous of continuing the struggle along with Great Britain, thereby forming a rallying point for units of the French Navy and French Colonial Governors overseas?

Mr. Butler: As was announced on 28th June, His Majesty's Government recognise General de Gaulle as the leader of all free Frenchmen wherever they may be who rally to him in support of the Allied cause.

Mr. Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been such long delay before this action was taken by the Government?

Mr. Butler: The action is perfectly emphatic.

Mr. Cocks: Does "wherever they may be" include France?

Mr. Butler: Certainly.

Mr. Mander: Do the Government also recognise the revolutionary Pétain Government?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are in relation with that Government through the French Chargé d'Affaires in London. I cannot further define how our attitude towards the Pétain Government will develop.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ARMISTICE MEETING, COMPIEGNE.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Government were aware that Herr Hitler and his staff were to be present in the Forest of Compiegne on 21st June?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The hon.

Member will appreciate that it is impossible for me to give details of the information available to us from intelligence sources.

Mr. Cocks: But was it not the Government's policy to interrupt the harmony of the proceedings?

Captain Balfour: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

DISTINGUISHED FLYING CROSS.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now make a statement as to the Distinguished Flying Cross being awarded for bravery without class distinction, as with the Victoria Cross?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir.

Mr. Ammon: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in March last I was told by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter had been submitted to the Coordination Committee, and may I press the hon. and gallant Member to urge his right hon. Friend to give this matter further consideration?

Captain Balfour: As the hon. Member will appreciate, the Air staffs, who will have primarily to consider this matter, have been very hard pressed with matters of greater urgency. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend received the papers either yesterday or the day before and will give the matter his personal consideration.

BATTLE EXPERIENCE.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is taking steps to ensure that the experience gained by all ranks during the recent fighting is made available at the earliest possible moment to the Air Ministry and also to operational commanders?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has arranged that selected officers and airmen of all ranks, engaged on both flying and ground duties, should have an opportunity of bringing personally to the notice of the Air Ministry and of operational commands the views they have formed as a result of battle experience. A series of meetings is being held for this purpose, over which Air Chief Marshal Sir Robert Brooke-Popham presides, and at which representatives of the Air Staff and of Fighter, Bomber,


Coastal and Training Commands are present. My right hon. Friend is confident that valuable information will be obtained and disseminated in this way.

WIRELESS EQUIPMENT.

Mr. Burke: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that the wireless apparatus at present fitted in the fighter machines is the best al obtainable?

Captain Balfour: The wireless apparatus referred to by the hon. Member is under constant development and improvement. It is the endeavour at all times to have latest developments incorporated in equipment issued to the Royal Air Force, consistent with the need for continuous production.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister aware that a certain fighter squadron in action recently complained that the latest issue is less efficient than the wireless apparatus that was taken out?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir; I am not aware of that, and if the hon. Member cares to send me any particulars, I will certainly look into the point.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Has the Minister talked to men who have actually flown in these planes and got their view of whether they could really hear?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir, I have actually talked to people who have flown in the planes, and I have actually flown in the planes myself and have been able to form my own opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED AIR FORCE UNITS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make with reference to the arrival in this country of Czech, Polish, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian and French Air Force units, and the services they are in a position to render to the Allied cause?

Captain Balfour: Yes, Sir. I welcome the presence in this country of personnel of the Air Forces of the countries referred to by the hon. Member. Arrangements are being made to enable them to continue the gallant and effective service which they have already rendered to the Allied cause.

Mr. Mander: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether they will remain as isolated national units or will be incorporated in our Forces?

Captain Balfour: That is a different and a wider question, and I should like to see it on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION.

REFINERIES (NOVA SCOTIA).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he has considered the advisability of erecting refineries in Halifax, Nova Scotia, instead of proceeding with the schemes at present in hand; and whether he has considered this from the point of view of vulnerability, economy and available steel supplies?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Colonel Llewellin): It would not be in the public interest to give information in regard to the erection of refineries, but if my hon. Friend would care to discuss the matter with me, I should be glad to do so.

Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I have discussed this matter with four different Departments, all of whom disclaimed any responsibility?

Colonel Llewellin: If the hon. Member wishes to discuss these matters with me, I am quite prepared to see him, as I said in answer to his original Question.

Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that I have endeavoured to discuss this matter with the Ministers of four Departments for the last month or six weeks, and there has been no encouragement whatever given to me?

MCLAREN UNDER-CARRIAGE.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether his attention has been called to the McLaren under-carriage; and whether he will assure the House that this invention is receiving every consideration for use with existing and future aircraft?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. This type of under-carriage is being investigated by this Ministry in close collaboration with


the inventor, who at our request has been screened from calling up in order that he may continue to work on his invention.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this invention was put forward nearly two years ago but that very little has been done, and is it not now time that those stick-in-the-muds at Farnborough were cleared out?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not quite follow that. I have told the hon. Member that we are encouraging this gentleman to continue with his invention and have reserved him from active Air Force service with that end in view, and we shall do our utmost, if he perfects the invention and it is a good one, to see that it is adopted.

AERO ENGINES (OVERSEAS PRODUCTION).

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production whether he has received any information in regard to the refusal of Mr. Henry Ford to manufacture in the United States of America, Rolls-Royce type aero engines for export to this country; and whether any steps are being taken in Canada or this country to ensure that any works in which Mr. Ford has an interest are rendered independent of his influence?

Colonel Llewellin: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker). In so far as the second part of the Question refers to the United Kingdom, the answer is in the negative. Any question relating to Canada should be addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

STEEL RAILS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has made a survey of all the superfluous and derelict steel rails throughout the railway systems of the country, with a view to utilising them for the national war effort?

The Minister of Transport (Sir John Reith): My Department has considered

this matter with the Railway Executive Committee. Any superfluous but still serviceable rails are used in the construction of sidings and other emergency works needed for the war. Unserviceable rails are handed over to the Iron and Steel Control.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a lot of other material on the railway systems which could be used for war purposes?

ABLE-BODIED CASUALS.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Health why able-bodied tramps are now being kept in workhouses at the public expense; and whether he will direct them to useful war work?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): It is necessary to make provision in casual wards and other places for the reception of tramps, but the number of able-bodied men so accommodated at any one time is not very large. Arrangements are being made with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service for local officers of his Department to be kept advised of the number of able-bodied men in casual wards so that they can be placed in useful war work whenever possible.

GOLD WEDDING RINGS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a plan by which married women can give their gold wedding rings to the Government, and receive in exchange a ring of some non-rusting metal and a printed certificate of honour, such exchanges to be made at the post offices?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): This suggestion has from time to time been made, but my right hon. Friend does not think at the present moment it is necessary to adopt it.

Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that wedding rings are regarded by many women as their most priceless possession? They would be prepared to give them to the Government, but they would like to exchange them for another ring.

Captain Crookshank: I am aware that wedding rings are regarded by women as their most priceless possessions, and it is


because of that fact that I want to be quite sure that the sacrifice would be commensurate with the advantages gained.

Mr. Liddall: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider letting wedding rings out on hire?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LOSSES IN POST.

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Postmaster-General what steps have been taken to detect and stop the serious pilfering of letters that is taking place all over the London area, involving not only great inconvenience but the loss of considerable sums of money?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I fully recognise the inconvenience occasioned by losses in the post. Such losses are kept constantly under notice by the investigation branch of the Post Office and the police officers attached thereto. Every effort is made to detect offenders, and several, including some postal servants in the London area, have been prosecuted since the beginning of the year. Actually the complaints of losses in the London postal area are less this year than for the corresponding period last year.

Sir G. Broadbridge: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the greatest sufferers by these post office thefts are persons of small means whose hire-purchase payments and similar payments have been stolen; and is he also aware that up to date one society has lost £1,500 and 190 letters?

Mr. Morrison: It is not always correct to assume that when a letter is lost it is lost in the post. It may be lost at either one end or the other. The difficulty of detecting offences of this character is rendered greater by the action of members of the public in putting Treasury notes into ordinary envelopes.

Mr. Cocks: Is the Postmaster-General aware that a member of His Majesty's Government has just received a letter which was posted 20 years ago?

Mr. Morrison: I am not aware of that.

ARMED FORCES (POSTAGE).

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the irritation aroused through the Post Office

charging double postage on unstamped letters sent by returned soldiers from Dunkirk to their parents, informing them of their safe return; and whether he will take steps to avoid any repetition of this grievance?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Instructions were issued to all post offices in this country that correspondence posted by British troops in course of evacuation from France should be accepted without stamps and delivered free of charge. If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any cases in which surcharges were incorrectly raised, I shall be glad to arrange for the amounts to be refunded.

Captain Strickland: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider granting free postage on home letters from all overseas troops serving in this country?

Mr. Morrison: I am already in communication with the Dominions authorities with a view to enabling them to arrange for their forces in this country to send their letters home free of postage.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY EMPLOYÉ (CONVICTION).

Mr. Radford: asked the Attorney-General with reference to the Admiralty chart depot employé, who was convicted about a fortnight ago by the Grimsby magistrates of being in possession of incriminating matter, including flying charts on which were written a list of towns with aerodromes, why he did not proceed against him under the Treachery Act?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): This prosecution was not referred to me or to the Director of Public Prosecutions, so there was no question of my giving directions with regard to it. That disposes of the actual Question put, but I have made inquiries into the case and would like to give the result of these. The proceedings were undertaken by the police authorities, who, as is usual in cases of this kind, were in consultation with the Security Services. Such cases, if regarded as sufficiently grave, are always referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. This case was not so regarded, and the Security Services agreed with the course taken, namely, to proceed summarily under Defence Regulation 3. I


do not think it would be right for me to go into details, but it follows from what I have said, that some of the reports which appeared gave a wrong impression of the gravity of this case. These reports have given rise to very natural anxiety. I have satisfied myself as the result of inquiries that this case affords no basis for these anxieties and that, under the existing procedure of communication between chief constables, the Security Services and the Director of Public Prosecutions, there is no reason to believe that grave cases of espionage or similar offences will not be properly dealt with.

Mr. Radford: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to put into operation the Treachery Act which we passed less than two months ago would have a salutary effect upon people of a traitorous frame of mind; whereas, if these people see that such cases merely go before magistrates and get trifling sentences, they will be encouraged in their wicked work?

The Attorney-General: Nothing would discredit justice in this country more than that prosecuting authorities should bring a case of treachery when, on the evidence, they were satisfied that no treachery existed.

Mr. Thurtle: Who is the Minister responsible to this House for the Department which the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls Security Services?

The Attorney-General: That is quite a different question. Security Services are, I think, the officers of the different Service Departments who are charged with matters of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ACCOMMODATION, RAILWAY STATIONS.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Secretary of State for War what new arrangements have been made effective since Wednesday last with regard to the comfort of troops at London and provincial railway termini?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) and English

Universities (Mr. E. Harvey). I can now add that proposals for bringing the canteen and rest room facilities at Liverpool Street and Paddington Stations up to the required standard have been prepared. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport informs me that the two railway companies concerned have willingly agreed that the required additional accommodation shall be made immediately available. Certain necessary structural alterations are being put in hand forthwith.

Mr. Etherton: Will my hon. and gallant Friend see that special attention is given to the London Midland and Scottish Railway's main station at Manchester—London Road—in regard to the continued refusal of the L.M.S. to allow voluntary services to take food for the troops on to the station?

Sir E. Grigg: I cannot accept that version of the facts, but I will certainly look into the matter.

Sir T. Moore: Are the War Office or the railway companies responsible for providing these services?

Sir E. Grigg: The welfare of the troops is a War Office responsibility.

Mr. Cocks: If there is plenty of room in the termini hotels, why could not provision be made there?

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with facilities for troops at London railway termini, he will consider the desirability of placing all arrangements at the different railway termini for the proper reception of troops under the respective general officer commanding-in-chief, particular attention being paid to the London district?

Sir E. Grigg: The general arrangements for the welfare of troops at railway stations now being made with the railway companies must necessarily be dealt with centrally by the War Office, in consultation with the Ministry of Transport, but this in no way impairs the responsibility of general officers commanding-in-chief for ensuring the welfare of troops in their commands, in accordance with approved policy.

Mr. De la Bére: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that it would not


be just entirely to blame the rail way companies for the inadequate accommodation? Is not this matter one entirely for the War Office? Cannot we get rid of this nightmare of laissez faire? Can we not put one man in charge and get the whole matter dealt with at once?

Sir E. Grigg: I have just replied that the welfare of the troops is a War Office responsibility.

Mr. De la Bère: Take immediate action, then. There is no sign of it.

Sir E. Grigg: We have taken immediate action.

LOCAL DEFENCE VOLUNTEERS.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what methods are adopted by the police when making inquiries into the bona fides and character of people desiring to become members of the Local Defence Volunteers, as, in some districts, the questioning of neighbours is resented?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The nature of the inquiries necessarily varies according to circumstances, but, so far at any rate as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, it is not the practice to make inquiries of neighbours.

Mr. Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my Question related to outside London rather than to inside? When questions are asked of neighbours, I think it may be necessary to do so; but would the hon. Gentleman see to it that people who are asked about the character of their neighbours can be assured that there is nothing sinister about the neighbours to necessitate the questions being asked?

Mr. Peake: If the hon. Gentleman has any specific instances in regard to which he would like me to make inquiries, I shall be very pleased to do so; but we ought to bear in mind the very great importance of making sure that no person of doubtful antecedents gets into the L.D.V.

Sir T. Moore: Have not the police been most efficient and tactful in carrying out their duties?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (RAILWAY TRAVEL).

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will instruct the

main line railway companies that where all third class seating accommodation is occupied and first class seats are vacant, serving soldiers, sailors, and airmen are to be permitted to use such seats without extra charge?

Sir J. Reith: I have consulted the Railway Executive Committee on this suggestion. They advise that, as a general rule, third class travel cannot be permitted in first class compartments, as the railway companies are bound to provide first class accommodation for officers of His Majesty's Forces and others holding first class tickets, and this applies not only at terminals but at intermediate stopping places. But, as indicated yesterday in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), when notice is given of troop movements arrangements are made to provide adequate seating accommodation. In the event, however, of a train being seriously overcrowded, latitude has been given to the railway staff to allow serving soldiers, sailors and airmen to use first class seats where available.

Mr. Butcher: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, will he take steps to induce the railway companies to take a more realistic attitude towards the travelling public?

Mr. Mander: Does that concession apply to the wives of soldiers, sailors and airmen too? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there are many soldiers travelling with their wives who would prefer to see them sitting down rather than themselves?

Mr. Garro Jones: While recognising that the railway companies are obliged to provide first class accommodation, in what respect do they fail in that duty if they allow soldiers to occupy empty first class seats?

Sir J. Reith: I will draw the attention of the Railway Executive Committee to what has been said in this House; secondly, I will ask them to advise their operating staff to exercise the latitude referred to; and, thirdly, I will ask them to give me a report in a week or two in the light of experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES AND HOURS OF LABOUR.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the national minimum


wage carries with it uniformity of weekly hours of work?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. T. Williams): No, Sir. The fixing of the number of hours to constitute the normal working week in each area is left to the county wages committees. In determining the new wage rates, only one of these committees—that for Durham—has made any substantial increase in the number of hours in relation to which the weekly wage is payable; and in that case my right hon. Friend is considering whether he should exercise his power under Section 6 of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, to direct the committee to reconsider their decision.

Mr. Smith: While thanking the Minister for the latter part of his reply, may I ask him whether there was any substantial reason why Durham should increase hours from 50 to 60 per week? Is it also true that in that county they have fixed wages for women workers at under 6d. an hour?

Mr. Williams: My reply to the first part of the question is that I know of no special reason why Durham should have acted differently from any other county. I am afraid that the reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Smith: What figure was fixed in that county for women's work on the land?

Mr. Williams: My recollection is that the figure for women workers beyond 18 years of age is round about 5½d.

Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that 5½d. an hour is not in accordance with the spirit of the Act, what is the hon. Gentleman's Department doing to see that the women are paid fairly?

Mr. Williams: I certainly do not intend to attempt to justify 5½d. an hour.

GOVERNMENT FIXATION OF PRICES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to Government fixation of prices for agricultural produce?

[That this House notes with grave concern the reluctance on the part of farmers to employ the services of additional labour now available for work on

the farms, and attributes this reluctance to the fact that farmers do not know the prices they will receive for their produce and are therefore unwilling to incur additional expense, and in many cases to increase their indebtedness to the banks, without some clearly defined statement from the Government in regard to the prices to be paid for all produce from the farms; is fully aware of the Government's assurance that prices will cover all increased expense, but feels that this assurance should now be expressed in some tangible, concrete, and crystallised form.]

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir, I can hold out no hope of time being given for the discussion of this Motion. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend of the recent statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and also of the general Debate on agriculture which takes place to-morrow.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the all-important part of this Motion relates to the indebtedness of agriculturists to the banks? Is he not himself the chairman of a Cabinet committee dealing with agricultural matters, and would he inquire into it himself and give us the value of his advice?

Mr. Attlee: I shall be willing to inquire into anything which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. De la Bère: Would the right hon. Gentleman support it then? A stereotyped answer is no good without support.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (PROTECTION OF GLASS).

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Home Secretary whether recent happenings have confirmed his opinion that strips of paper on windows reduce accidents from broken glass during air raids; and, if so, whether he will take the necessary steps to prevent the continued insertion in the Press of statements that paper on glass is useless?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): As indicated in various publications issued by my Department, certain forms of adhesive treatments on glass provide some protection against distant effects of bombs, but it is clearly indicated that if paper is used, it must be thick and


tough, and must be applied with proper adhesives. Thin papers applied in strips are not recommended as an effective means of reducing accidents. While experience up to the present is limited, there is no reason to doubt the advice given on this matter by my Department. A watch is kept on the accuracy of statements in the Press relating to air-raid precautions, and if my hon. Friend has in mind statements in advertisements, arrangements have been made for a voluntary censorship.

Mr. Shinwell: Have not the Home Department knowledge of the right kind of paper to be used, and cannot they acquaint manufacturers with their experience and knowledge so that householders may have this means of protection?

Mr. Mabane: There is no need to do so. The right kind of paper is readily available.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a certain Sunday paper has printed lessons on air raids, and that one of the lessons stated that paper upon glass is useless during air raids?

Mr. Mabane: Statements of that kind are carefully watched. Thin paper is not much good, but tough, thick paper properly applied is of use.

GREYHOUND RACE MEETINGS.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Home Secretary in order to protect the local population from overcrowding, what provision has been made to provide air-raid shelters for those attending greyhound race meetings at Harringay and the White City?

Mr. Mabane: It has not been the practice to require the provision of air-raid shelter for all those attending entertainments. In the case of greyhound race meetings, football matches, and similar outdoor entertainments, the grounds are used only for a matter of hours in each week in the daytime, the attendances have been limited, and the spectators are advised to remain on the ground if there should be an air-raid warning, though some of them would no doubt leave. A concrete stand affords a measure of protection; there is cover of this kind at Harringay for about 6,000 persons. No race meetings are being held at the White City.

Mr. Hall: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that many more than 6,000 are now attending these meetings, and it is grossly unfair to the local population that they should not only have the nuisance of these people coming but that in the event of an air raid they would run a great risk of not getting into the shelters. Can nothing be done to stop this state of affairs?

Mr. Mabane: The Government have adopted this policy in regard to entertainments. This has been the policy ever since the war started.

Mr. Hall: Yes, but they are legitimate entertainments.

Mr. Ammon: Should not these things now be prohibited?

Mr. Mabane: That is another matter.

HOME DEFENCE (CO-ORDINATION).

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Prime Minister whether an early statement can be made as to who is to exercise supreme authority in connection with matters of home defence and internal security, in view of the fact that instructions are now being received from five or six Ministries, often contradictory and involving the recipients in a large amount of paper work?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. An early statement on this subject will be made. I cannot accept the allegation contained in the Question.

Sir R. Glyn: Will consideration also be given at that time to the lack of coincidence between the different areas? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the regional commissioners' areas do not coincide with any military command, and that the result is that confusion must arise?

Mr. Attlee: I am aware that there is certain overlapping between the different areas. There are many areas in this country which have grown up in time, and they do not in all cases coincide. I think it would be impossible to revise them at the present moment.

Sir R. Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the country desires to give full support to the Government, but that confusion in the orders that are issued does not help?

Mr. De la Bère: Does it not become clearer and clearer that there is no real co-ordination? Why not get on with it?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH REFUGEES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that no Spanish soldiers who had been fighting with or serving the French Army, or other refugees from the Spanish civil war who have now reached this country, will be sent to Spain without their consent?

Mr. Peake: The answer is in the affirmative as regards any person who can satisfy my right hon. Friend that he comes within one of the categories referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Liddall: Will the hon. Gentleman say why any Spanish national should have any objection at all to returning to his native heath?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNEES.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether refugees from Nazi oppression who are over 60 years of age and not interned may either be interned along with their wives who have been, or are to be, interned because they are under 60 years of age, or whether he will permit those wives to remain with their husbands?

Mr. Peake: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War stated yesterday, the consideration of the question of providing mixed internment camps for married couples must await more settled conditions. If a wife is liable to interment but her husband is exempted because he is over 70 years of age, my right hon. Friend could not regard the age of the husband as in itself a reason for exempting the wife, but if there were special circumstances justifying exceptional treatment in an individual case, my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider such a case.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that there are several cases of undue and unnecessary hardship when elderly couples are separated in this way, and will he give that matter special consideration?

Mr. Peake: I am fully aware of the hardships caused by the present policy, but the hon. Member must bear in mind that we are operating under very exceptional conditions of stress.

Mr. G. Strauss: Have arrangements yet been made for allowing married couples to be interned?

Mr. Peake: That was the Question on the Paper, and I have answered it.

Sir Irving Albery: Can the hon. Gentleman say exactly to what extent the Home Office is responsible and to what extent the War Office is responsible?

Mr. Peake: The Home Office is responsible for the custody of women internees, and the War Office for the custody of the males.

Sir Richard Acland: Apparently, then, there is no hope of getting this problem solved until the whole matter is under one Department?

Mr. Sorensen: Can we not have some co-ordination?

Mr. Peake: I can assure the hon. Member that there is some co-ordination, and inquiry is being made into this problem at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PAPER SUPPLIES.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will ration the supply of paper to all Government Departments to 25 per cent. of that used last year, with a view not only to economy, but to releasing for more useful occupations larger numbers of employés, who at present fill in and initial forms?

Captain Crookshank: In view of the increasing activities of Departments directly engaged on the war effort, it would not be practicable to adopt a rationing system on the lines suggested by the hon. Member. He may, however, rest assured that the paper requirements of Departments are being specially scrutinised with a view to the maximum possible reduction in all cases. I am unable to accept the implication contained in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Edwards: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that a large number of industrialists and manufacturers in this country feel that there is an unnecessarily large number of forms to fill in, and that if these Departments could be deprived of paper, it would increase the war effort enormously?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman, in the scheme which he propounds, has forgotten that a great number of Departments were not in existence a year ago, and one cannot therefore ration on a previous basis.

Mr. Edwards: Rationing could be applied on the basis of the number of Departments in existence before a year ago?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I can give an instance in which seven sheets of foolscap paper were used for one small contract which could be written on one half of one sheet of paper?

Captain Crookshank: Any question about contracts and the method of arrangement had better be put to the Minister concerned.

Sir I. Albery: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention been called to page 193 of today's Order Paper?

MILK MARKETING BOARD.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is now the number of the staffs of the Milk Marketing Board in this country; what function is now left for the Board; and whether the employés are in a reserved occupation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circular it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of persons at present employed by the Milk Marketing Board is 1,683, made up as follows:


—
Male.
Female.
Total.


Head Office
…
357
745
1,102


Creameries
…
283
66
349


Regional Offices
…
553
79
232




793
890
1,683

As regards the second part of the Question, the Board continues to carry out its normal functions and to exercise its powers in cooperation with the Ministry of Food in giving effect to the Government's milk policy. As regards the third part of the Question, the administrative and executive employés of

the Board are at present reserved at age 25. This age will be raised to 30 on 1st August next. The general provisions of the Schedule of Reserved Occupations apply to other employés of the Board according to the nature of their occupations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (ONE-MAN BUSINESSES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will reconsider the limitations upon the granting of postponement of military service to owners of one-man businesses on the ground of hardship, so that it will be possible, in exceptional circumstances, to grant longer periods of postponement than the maximum of two periods of six months?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): Postponement certificates granted on the ground of business responsibilities and interests, but not those granted on the grounds of domestic position or individual circumstances, are subject, by Regulation, to a maximum of 12 months. My right hon. Friend is not prepared in present circumstances to amend the Regulation so as to permit that maximum to be extended.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are certain cases where very great hardship is inflicted on one-man businesses?

Mr. Assheton: I am aware of that, but unfortunately hardship is quite inescapable in time of war.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' STATEMENTS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that, in future, whenever important announcements are to be made by Ministers they shall be first made on the Floor of the House of Commons?

Mr. Attlee: His Majesty's Government are of opinion that important statements should whenever possible be made by Ministers in Parliament. The House will realise, however, that there may be special occasions on which it is necessary to depart from this practice. This was the case in connection with the statement on agricultural prices which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture


explained, it was originally intended to make to the House last Thursday. Unfortunately it proved impossible to do this, and in view of the fact that some of the new price schedules came into operation on 1st July it was considered desirable to make the statement at the week-end.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the continuation of this practice will forfeit any idea of confidence which the public may have in Ministers and in the House of Commons? It is an undesirable practice and one which should not be allowed to continue.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance to the House that no curtailment will be made of the full liberty hitherto enjoyed by the Press to express a free and unfettered opinion about every aspect of the conduct of the war or to comment on any attempts from any quarter to initiate peace discussions?

Mr. Attlee: The policy of the Government is to interfere as little as possible with the liberties of the Press to express freely their opinions and comments on the conduct of the war or on supposed peace overtures. But it must be recognised that statements can be put out in the guise of opinion, which either give information of value to the enemy or are calculated to impede our war effort by weakening the resolution of the public. The Government are not prepared to give any assurance that the publication of such statements will not be interfered with.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been called to a recent manifesto issued by the Communist party, and are the Government taking any steps in the matter?

Mr. Attlee: My attention has not been called to it.

Sir A. Southby: If I submit the manifesto to my right hon. Friend, will he submit it to the War Cabinet and see whether steps can be taken about it?

Mr. Cocks: Why were the Press told a fortnight ago not to criticise the composition of the present Government?

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, so far as any fair political comment is concerned, no restrictions of any kind will be imposed on the Press?

Mr. Attlee: Certainly. I explained in answer to the Question that it was only where there was any question of giving information of value to the enemy or impeding our war effort that there would be any restrictions; otherwise, the Government are not in favour of interfering with the free expression of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR AIMS.

Captain Medlicott: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take such steps as will enable the individual Members of this House to enter into a solemn pledge that this House, as the sovereign representative assembly of the nation, will not assent to the signing of any treaty of peace with Germany until decisive victory over that country has been won?

Mr. Attlee: I do not understand my hon. and gallant Friend's Question, which appears to be based on a misapprehension of the constitutional position. The determination of His Majesty's Government to secure a decisive victory has been made clear in recent statements in this House. Such statements have received the full support of hon. Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

INVALIDS (SUGAR).

Mr. Burke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will consider issuing increased sugar rations to invalids whose need for such increase is certified by doctors?

Mr. Boothby: The question whether certain invalids require an increased sugar ration has been considered by the Food Rationing (Special Diets) Committee of the Medical Research Council, which has advised that extra rations should be allowed to those suffering from spontaneous hypoglycaemia. The committee do not consider that extra sugar rations are required for any other type of invalid.

Mr. Liddall: May I ask what my hon. Friend referred to; and does he think that it will affect me at all?

Mr. Boothby: It is a very rare disease.

SUGAR (FRUIT PRESERVING).

Mr. G. Strauss (for Mr. Mathers): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are being taken to ensure that the food value of the exceptional crop of strawberries and other soft fruits is not wasted by failure to allow sugar for preserving?

Mr. Boothby: My Noble Friend is making arrangements which he hopes will prove effective for this purpose. Supplies of sugar to commercial jam makers are being increased, and a special allotment o sugar to the extent of 6 lbs. per ration book has already been issued to householders who are growers of their own fruit. A general additional issue of 2 lbs. per ration book will be made during the period beginning 8th July to enable householders, whether growers or purchasers of fruit, to assist further in the domestic preservation of fruit then in season. It is proposed, if the supply situation permits, that a second additional ration shall be made available later for the plum crop.
My Noble Friend has also given attention to the question of the preservation of surplus fruit grown in allotments and private gardens, for which additional sugar supplies may be necessary. Arrangements have been made throughout the rural areas of England and Wales for the co-operative preservation of fruit at the depots of the Women's Institutes and in Scotland through the Women's Rural Institutes and Surplus Fruit Disposal Committees are being set up in towns and suburban areas in England and Wales to make arrangements on similar lines where possible. When this is not possible surplus fruit will be diverted to hospitals, institutions, schools and communal centres or such other arrangements made as may be suitable in particular districts. To facilitate these arrangements a special sugar issue, on the basis of ¾ lb. of sugar per lb. of fruit for jam making, and 1/5th lb. of sugar per lb. of fruit for bottling, will be made where necessary. Similar schemes for urban areas in Scotland with such modifications as are necessary to meet special Scottish conditions are being prepared.

Mr. Liddall: Before the additional supply for plums is forthcoming may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the hon. Member for Lincoln has a large quantity of raspberries, loganberries, black and red currants; and what must he do about it?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Have you got all the raspberries we have given you in the last five years?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

SIR ALEXANDER GIBB AND PARTNERS.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply the amount of work entrusted by his Department to Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners since 1st July, 1939?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As I disclosed the amount of the fee payable to this firm in response to my hon. Friend's Question on 19th June, I should have liked also to disclose the value of the work being done by them, so that hon. Members could have seen for themselves that the fee is small in relation to the extensive character of the works. I am afraid, however, that it would not be in the national interest to do so, but I shall be prepared, if desired, to communicate the information to my hon. Friend in private.

SCRAP METAL.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that it is estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 tons of non-ferrous scrap metal are lying idle in London; that the scrap-metal merchants concerned, whose yards are full to overflowing, find it impossible to sell this scrap to his Ministry; and why this scrap is not all immediately bought up for use in the national emergency?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed that there is a keen demand for the higher grades of brass scrap, which are passing readily into consumption, but that there has been some increase in stocks of low-grade material. Inquiries are being made of the scrap merchants regarding the quantities and qualities of the scrap in their hands, in order that steps can be taken to see that it passes into use.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister not aware that the scrap yards are fuller than they have ever been before—in fact, almost at


a standstill? Will he consider whether it is not possible that the present control of non-ferrous metals has something to do with that?

Mr. Morrison: I have examined this matter this morning. My hon. Friend will appreciate that scrap is of varying qualities, and that that has to be considered, but I am getting into touch with the Non-Ferrous Metal Controller on the matter.

Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we insist unduly on Rolls-Royce standards for our material; and might not a consideration of less high standards enable us to make use of this useless scrap?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is largely a matter for the appropriate Service Departments, but I have made it known that that is an aspect of the matter which is to be given proper and urgent consideration.

Sir A. Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all over the country large quantities of scrap, ferrous and non-ferrous, are awaiting collection, and that nothing is being done about it? Could he expedite the collection?

Mr. Morrison: Something is being done about it. I have made arrangements with the proper people to organise it, particularly in the rural areas. I imagine that some of the heaps to which the hon. and gallant Member refers are in course of accumulation, and will be collected in due course. The situation is not entirely satisfactory, but we have made big changes in the right direction.

Sir A. Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the schemes are all right, but that the collection does not occur in the right places?

ARMY LORRIES (REPAIR).

Mr. Cocks: asked the Minister of Supply whether any of the work of repairing Army lorries, which could be undertaken by garage proprietors, is still being carried out by motor-manufacturing firms, thus taking up space and labour which could be utilised in aircraft production?

Mr. H. Morrison: The work of repairing Army lorries under the Ministry of

Supply scheme is, and always has been, carried out by garage proprietors, not motor manufacturing firms. Some vehicle manufacturers have repair depots in various districts, and use has been made of these facilities, treating the depots as garages in the ordinary way. This work in depots does not take up any space or labour that would otherwise be utilised in aircraft production.

STEEL.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he has taken to ensure that the steel for which he is responsible is used only on vital war production; and if he can now announce that supplies of steel for ordinary building will be stopped at once?

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend may rest assured that adequate steps are taken to ensure that the steel allocated by the Production Council for use by my Department is only used for essential purposes. As regards the second part of the Question, the acquisition of steel for building is already strictly controlled, with the exception of relatively small quantities sold by merchants. I am issuing an Order today prohibiting the use of steel already in contractors' hands for building purposes, except under licence, and restricting still further the sales by merchants for this purpose.

Mr. Edwards: Does that mean that many of the buildings now going up in London, which have no apparent war purpose, will come to an end?

Mr. Morrison: That must depend on the merits of the case and on the progress that has been already made.

CONTRACTS.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Supply what machinery exists in Scotland to co-ordinate the work of his officials who select contractors as suitable for Government work and the officials responsible for processing and inspection?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The position of Scotland in this matter is no different from that of the rest of the country. The selection of contractors is done in the case of new firms after an assessment of their capacity by representatives of the production departments of the Ministry, in consultation with


the area officer. At all times the production and inspection staffs work in close conjunction. With regard to the strengthening of local machinery generally, my right hon. Friend made a full reply on 26th June to a Question by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Mr. Leonard: If I give illustrations to the hon. Gentleman of lack of co-ordination in the matter, will he take them up?

Mr. Macmillan: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Davidson: What steps are taken by the area committee in Glasgow to make known to contractors in that area the requirements of the Minister? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very few contractors in Glasgow know anything about the area committee?

Mr. Macmillan: The answer is that the function of the committee is to advise the area board. With regard to the general question, my information is that a very high percentage, rising to as much as 95 per cent. of the engineering capacity of Glasgow, has already been utilised by Supply Departments.

Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Gentleman say how often that area committee has met?

TIMBER PRICES.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Supply whether contractors, not in possession of all the timber they require for Government contracts when national stocks are released and new prices specified, will be permitted to alter their tenders to the extent that new timber prices exceed present controlled prices?

Mr. H. Morrison: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind contracts made with Government Departments before 1st July, the date on which the Control of Timber (No. 13) Order came into force. As regards such contracts which involve the use of home-grown timber, no change is made by the new Order in the maximum prices ruling before 1st July. The prices of imported plywood also remain unchanged for the time being, pending the issue of a separate Order which I propose to make at an early date. With regard to contracts involving the use of imported timber other than plywood, the new Order provides that, subject to the conditions prescribed in the Order, the maxi-

mum prices ruling before 1st July continue to apply to timber in respect of which before that date an order has been given and accepted in writing and a licence has been issued to acquire the timber. I am advised that the majority of existing contracts should be safeguarded by this provision. In cases, however, where a Government contractor can produce evidence that for reasons beyond his control he is not so safeguarded, he would normally be in a position, by virtue of the provisions in his contract, to submit a contractual claim for re-imbursement of the extra cost of his timber. If a contractual claim cannot be made, each case will be sympathetically considered by the Department concerned on its merits, with a view to making an ex gratia payment in excess of the contract price. As regards contracts which were still under negotiation on and after 1st July, it is, of course, open to a firm to amend its tender at any time prior to its acceptance by the Department concerned.

MATERIALS (QUALITY TESTS).

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will take steps to ensure that Government inspectors will apply their quality tests to materials before being processed and so eliminate wastage in material and work entailed by some of the present practices?

Mr. H. Morrison: It has for some time been the practice to apply such tests to materials prior to their being processed. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. Leonard: Is the Minister aware that this practice exists at the present time and that illustrations can be given to him of Government inspectors boring holes in wooden boxes for munitions in order to ascertain the moisture content and that in the same shop boards are lying about from which boxes are being made and which could be used for this purpose?

Mr. Morrison: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to give me the particulars identifying the case, I shall be very glad to look into it.

Mr. Leonard: The Minister will appreciate that it will have to be confidential, because contractors are not willing to give information in many of these cases?

Mr. Morrison: If contractors have something to say in the public interest, it is right that they should say it. May I say here, publicly, that I shall see to it that contractors are protected against any victimisation, which I have no reason to believe really exists, though I realise that the fear of it may exist in their own minds.

Mr. Leonard: I will supply my right hon. Friend with the details.

IRON RAILINGS (THAMES DITTON).

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Supply why iron railings are now being erected along a considerable frontage of the Milk Marketing Board's new offices at Thames Ditton; who authorised such work, and when; and whether, as it is not in the national interest to use iron for this purpose, he will order this to be stopped?

Mr. H. Morrison: In the time available I have not been able to obtain any information as to the use of railings in this case, but I am making further inquiries at once and will inform my hon. Friend of the result. I have also under consideration a proposal to prohibit the use of new iron and steel railings except under licence.

ESPARTO GRASS.

Mr. G. Strauss (for Mr. Mathers): asked the Minister of Supply whether efforts are being made to increase the importation of esparto grass for papermaking, in view of the loss of supplies of wood-pulp from certain countries owing to war conditions?

Mr. H. Morrison: The importation of esparto grass is being facilitated so far as is practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA.

Mr. Riley (for Mr. Parker): asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the assistant chief censor in Jamaica ordered newspapers, on 28th May, to omit all reference in future to conscription of wealth, and to the recent legislation with regard to Government control of industry in the United Kingdom; whether this ban had his approval; and whether freedom of discussion on such important matters of policy is to be allowed in future in Jamaica?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any special circumstances known to him making a measure recently introduced in Jamaica, namely, the Undesirable Literature Bill, necessary in the case of this Colony, the effect of the Bill being to give the Governor almost unlimited power to prohibit the entry into the Colony of any publication; and whether, as the powers of the Governor were already sufficient to deal with matters provided for by the Bill and the measure is calculated to shake the confidence of our Jamaican subjects, he will arrange to have the measure withdrawn?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I have no information regarding the points raised, but inquiries are being made of the Governor of Jamaica by telegram, and I will communicate further with my hon. Friends on receipt of his reply.

Mr. Riley: Does my hon. Friend approve of the ban referred to in this Question being applied to Jamaica and not to this country?

Mr. Hall: I must await the information which is being sought.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILMS (BRITISH FORCES).

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that there have been restrictions on the taking of films of the British Forces in France and Flanders which have hampered their propaganda value to the Ministry of Information; and whether film units can be so organised that the latitude which appears to be allowed them in the German Army can be counteracted by British films?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): I am aware that complaints have been made of restrictions on the activities of Film Units in France and Flanders. I attach considerable importance to the production of films depicting our national effort and I am in close touch with the Service Departments with a view to their providing the maximum facilities consistent with national interests.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Would it be too much to say that there were no films


taken of this epic feat of the evacuation of Dunkirk, and also can the Minister tell us whether in the operations at present going on in Egypt the matter of films will receive consideration?

Mr. Nicolson: I understand there were no films taken, and I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Graham White: Is the Minister aware that very effective films were made by German film units and that they have been displayed all over the Balkans depicting the defeat and evacuation of the British Army?

Oral Answers to Questions — MIGRATION TO DOMINIONS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many persons, men, women and children, respectively, of British nationality have left this country for British Dominion countries since September, 1939?

Mr. Boulton (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Particulars of migration movement have not been compiled since the outbreak of war, and my hon. Friend regrets that he is therefore not in a position to supply the figures asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BRITISH SUBJECT'S CLAIM).

Sir Cooper Rawson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your advice about a Question I sent to the Table, which was turned down on the ground that it was fully answered on 5th June and on 19th June? It was not fully answered, and the dates were mixed up. All I wanted to get from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was an assurance that he would give me a copy of a communication sent by him in March, 1923, and a copy of a communication received in reply. I have been trying to fight this case for a year now and have met with all sorts of obstacles to a plain, straightforward question which requires only a straightforward reply. I have called attention to this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and by all other legitimate means, and I new want to know what I can do next.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to have been unfortunate, but I think he

has had a rather good innings. I recollect the occasion when he raised the subject on the Motion for the Adjournment, and it hardly seems time again to broach the subject. The hon. Member had better wait a little time before he does so.

Sir C. Rawson: I was interrupted then by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who takes up a lot of time in this House, and who afterwards apologised to me. I cannot bring the matter up again. This man has been blind for 17 years, and it is about time that something was done. What can I do, Mr. Speaker? [Laughter.] This is no joke; I do not take up much of the time of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Member.

Sir C. Rawson: Who can help me?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAR SITUATION).

Mr. Lees-Smith: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Prime Minister will make his next statement on the war situation?

Mr. Attlee: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement tomorrow on the war situation. The statement will be made on a Motion for the Adjournment, and the House will have an opportunity for a Debate if desired. In this event the Debate on agriculture announced for tomorrow will be postponed till next week.

Sir T. Moore: Will it be in secret?

Mr. Attlee: That is a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Cocks: Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that at the present time this is one place where we must be free? We do not want a Secret Session.

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR, 1940 (SUPPLE- MENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT).

Estimate presented,—of the further sum required to be voted towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending 31st March, 1941, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and for the Ministry of


Supply in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament, for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 146.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (AIR-RAID WARNINGS).

3.43 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move,
That for the remainder of the present Session the following provisions shall have effect as respects the sittings of the House, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of the House—

(a) if, by reason of an air-raid warning being given while the House is sitting, the sitting is suspended, it shall be resumed as soon as may be after the raiders passed signal is given;
(b) if at the time appointed for the meeting of the House on any day an air-raid warning has been given and the raiders passed signal has not been given, the meeting of the House shall be postponed until as soon as may be after the raiders passed signal is given;

Provided that, where the sitting of the House on any day is suspended by virtue of the foregoing paragraph till after the time appointed for the meeting of the House on the following day, this paragraph shall not apply with respect to that following day and the ordinary practice of the House with respect to overlapping sittings shall apply;
(c) where any sitting of the House is suspended or postponed as aforesaid—

(i)the time at which any business, the consideration of which has not begun, is required by any Standing Order, order or resolution of the House to be taken; and
(ii)the time at which any such business, or any business the consideration of which has begun but has not been completed, is required as aforesaid to be concluded or interrupted;

shall be postponed by the length of the period for which the sitting has been suspended or postponed:
Provided that where at any such sitting private business, or any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 8 would, but for this paragraph, have been required to be considered at 7.30 p.m., and the remainder of the business of the House has been disposed of before the time substituted by this paragraph for 7.30 p.m., that private business or Motion shall be considered immediately after the conclusion of the remainder of the business;
(d) at any sitting of the House which has been suspended or postponed as aforesaid, any Motion or other business which, but for this paragraph, could not have been made or taken without notice, or would have been required to be made or taken at a particular time or at a particular stage of the proceedings, may be made by, or taken at the instance of, a Minister of the Crown without notice and at any other time or other stage of the proceedings."
The Motion which I now move has been drawn up after consultation with the authorities of the House and is designed

to regulate the sittings of the House in the event of interruptions being caused by air-raid warnings. In brief, the effect of the Motion is to discount any period during which a sitting is suspended or postponed on account of an air-raid warning. The rights of Members with regard to Questions and Debate are fully safeguarded, as hon. Members will see by the following instance: If an air-raid warning is given at 3.30 p.m. before Questions end and the raiders passed signal is given at 5.30 p.m., the House when it resumes will continue Questions until 5.45 p.m. (instead of 3.45 p.m.); we should then proceed to the consideration of Government Business; any Private Business set down for consideration by the Chairman of Ways and Means would be taken at 9.30 p.m. instead of 7.30 p.m. and the 11 o'clock rule would operate at 1 o'clock instead of 11 o'clock.
I may say that power is taken in the event of Government Business finishing before 9.30 p.m. for Private Business or a Motion on a matter of urgent public importance, to be taken at the conclusion of Government Business in order to avoid the House waiting until 9.30 p.m. In effect the House proceeds with its Business where it left off and under the example which I have given everything is postponed by two hours, being the length of the air-raid warning.
I should say a word about paragraph (d) which gives power to deal with any eventuality. It might become essential, as a result of an air raid, to take Business which is not on the Order Paper or which cannot be taken for lack of time. This is perhaps more likely to happen when one day's sitting has run over into the next day's sitting as a result of an air-raid warning lasting for a long time. It might be essential to pass important Business, and the House will have power to consider any such Business at the instance of the Government. I commend the proposal to the House and hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a wise step to take to ensure the functioning of the House in spite of interruptions which may arise at this present time.

3.47 p.m.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about this Motion. It is not quite clear, if an air raid takes place, whether the House is to be suspended


automatically. Is there any discretion in the matter? I understand that the present practice with regard to industrial establishments carrying on work of national importance is that they shall not cease from work until guns are heard or, at any rate, until there is some definite action taking place. Is it the intention that in every case the House of Commons shall stop work the moment an air-raid warning sounds? I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether that is so or not? This Motion apparently lays it down quite definitely that the House cannot resume until after the raiders passed signal is given. What is to happen, supposing an air-raid warning is given and the House suspends its sitting, if nothing happens? Is every Member to go down to the air-raid shelters and sit there the full time until the raiders passed signal is given?

Mr. Thorne: He can go home if he likes.

Sir H. O'Neill: Is there any power to resume sittings of the House in certain cases before the raiders passed signal is given? Might it not be a good plan to give you, Mr. Speaker, power to use your discretion—I assume you have power already to use your discretion about suspending sittings—to resume sittings in certain circumstances where it might be desirable to resume even though the raiders passed signal is not given?

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is in the power of Mr. Speaker to suspend the sitting. The whole matter is one of discretion.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I should be glad if the Lord Privy Seal could give me a little more enlightenment on paragraph (d). I am afraid I cannot understand the circumstances in which this provision would be required. It appears to mean that a Minister of the Crown could come up from the air-raid shelter and spring upon the House something which was not on the Order Paper. Having devoted the period to thinking out some quick one, he could put it over on the House. There may be some other circumstances which the Government have in mind, but I cannot see any circumstances in which some business that was not on the Order Paper in the ordinary way should suddenly be sprung

upon the House because an air-raid warning had taken place. I should like to hear from the Lord Privy Seal what circumstances are contemplated in paragraph (d).

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: I do not think the hon. Member has followed the instance which I gave. It is possible that there might be an air-raid warning which would cause the business of the House to be carried over to another day, and there would then be no opportunity for taking the business of that day. The hon. Member will realise that it would be in the power of the House to accept or refuse the business. The provision is inserted merely to cover the case of a long suspension which might run from one day to the next day.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I believe this is a half-baked and ill-considered proposal. Certainly, it has no reference to the possibility of a continuous succession of raids by relays of aeroplanes which might put the House out of operation for a whole clay or a whole week, and the House might then be called upon to resume its business at hours which would impose an immense inconvenience upon every Member of the House, without regard to the importance of the business or legislation which had to be passed. I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal who, precisely, has been consulted about, and what consideration has been given to, this Motion before thrusting it upon the attention of the House? I observe with some satisfaction that it is designed to apply only to the present Session, but I would appeal to the Lord Privy Seal that, before we commit ourselves to a proposition fraught with so much uncertainty, difficulty and inconvenience, it should be given a trial period of a week or a month first, and that in the meantime it should be submitted to persons who not only have knowledge of the procedure of the House, but have given some consideration to the circumstances in which air-raid warnings are given and sustained. Unless that is done, I consider that the House would be ill-advised to commit itself to this Motion.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) has given


absolutely no reason for suggesting that this Motion is ill-considered. It has been considered by the authorities of the House, and various hon. Members of great experience have been consulted on it. The hon. Member has not shown in any way that it will not work. It is true that the Motion does not envisage everything that might happen. No provision is made, for instance, regarding what might happen in the matter of the Sittings of the House if a bomb fell in the centre of the House. It is a simple procedure designed to deal with something which may happen at any moment with regard to air-raid warnings. It is quite untrue to suggest that the Motion has been sprung upon the House without consideration or that it has been made by persons who do not understand the procedure of the House. The hon. Member has made no suggestion to improve the procedure about which he has complained.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Lord Privy Seal says that I have made no suggestion. I asked him whether those who have knowledge of the system under which air-raid warnings are given have been consulted. We know that at the present time air-raid warnings may take place every half-hour or hour. Have those responsible for giving the warnings been consulted in this matter?

3.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I do not understand the justification for this Motion. Yesterday, the Home Secretary informed us that until anti-aircraft fire is heard workers in industry and in munitions factories should not leave their work. Today, we are asked to pass a Motion by which Members of Parliament, who are supposed to be the leaders and representatives of the country, would leave their work at once without waiting for antiaircraft fire. I think the Motion is not in keeping with the atmosphere of the House and the atmosphere in the country.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) is mistaken. It is within the discretion of Mr. Speaker whether or not he suspends the Sitting.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: As I read the Motion, the position is as follows. You

have complete discretion, Mr. Speaker, to suspend the Sitting if and when an air-raid warning is given, but it seems to be a contradiction that in paragraph (b) you have no discretion to summon the House until after the "all-clear" signal has been given. I beg my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to reconsider that point, and I suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, should be given discretion to summon the House before the "all-clear" signal has been given, in the same way as you have discretion to suspend the Sitting when an air-raid warning is given.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I hope the Lord Privy Seal will consider a simple Amendment to the Motion so as to leave you, Mr. Speaker, complete authority and power to call the House together again when it has been adjourned on account of an air-raid warning. Surely, it would be only in keeping with your dignity and authority that you should have such power and that you should not be prejudiced by the wording of the Motion. I feel sure that the House wishes to entrust you with that authority.

Mr. Cocks: There is a very strong feeling in the House that the House should go on sitting, when an air-raid warning has been given, as long as the circumstances permit.

Sir H. O'Neill: I am not quite clear even now about the resumption of the Sitting after it has been suspended. May I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that it might be a good plan to make an Amendment of this nature—

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you how many speeches an hon. Member is entitled to make on the Motion?

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member is not allowed to make more than one speech on the Motion, except by leave of the House.

Mr. Attlee: This Motion has been moved purely in the interests of the House, to meet its convenience and particularly to protect the rights of Members. The rights of Members depend to a large extent on the particular hour at which business can be taken. However, if there is criticism


of the Motion and if hon. Members wish to make suggestions, I am quite willing to withdraw the Motion, to have the usual inquiries made, and to settle the matter, in consultation with the authorities of the House.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill which I now submit to the House, proposes to make changes in the law relating to unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance. The changes which I propose to make fall into two parts. The first is an increase of benefits and the second is bringing in a new class of insured persons into the insurance scheme. I made a review of the position of the unemployed soon after I took office. I dealt first with the subject in relation to the cost of living. It will be remembered that the cost of living figure at the outbreak of war in September was 155. It is now 181 or an increase from September to date of 17 per cent. Increases have already been given in benefit since the outbreak of the war over the original figure. The original statutory rule provided for an adult dependant allowance of 7s. That was increased by statutory rules and orders in 1939 by 2s., making it 9s. The figure for children was 3s., and by statutory rules and orders that was increased to 4s. for the first two children. I came to the conclusion embodied in the proposals which I now submit, that the right way to deal with this question is to increase the adult rate. We have fixed the figure for people who are evacuated—civil servants and others—on a purely lodging basis, at roughly £1 or £1 1s. a week. Many of the people who are unemployed are single men who have to pay for lodgings and everyone knows that the cost of lodgings has increased considerably. I felt, therefore, as I say, that the right way to deal with the matter was to increase the adult rate. That works

out I think fairly between the adult person, man or woman and the family.
The House has to face another situation at this moment. In certain branches, unemployment is being created deliberately and of sheer national necessity. Restrictions imposed by the Board of Trade on non-essential industries, the limitation of exports and curtailment of luxury industries are producing unemployment. There is a danger of that unemployment being created in what I might describe as pockets or in districts, which makes it rather difficult to deal with from the point of view of the transference of the unemployed persons to munition work. When you deliberately, and in the interest of the State, create unemployment, as it were, you cannot then take advantage of rates that were fixed for an entirely different purpose. We are trying to transfer these unemployed as fast as we can to munition industries but, inevitably, there must be a time lag between closing a works and securing those who have been thrown out of employment, for the purpose of training them and transferring them to an entirely new occupation. I am happy to say, however, and I think it well to mention the fact, that we have worked out a co-ordinated plan with the Board of Trade, in order to minimise the difficulty, by giving previous notice and then examining very carefully in what places works are likely to be closed, so that preliminary steps may be taken to begin the early treatment of the subject, even before the stoppage actually takes place. In spite of that measure, there is still a very large residue of this created unemployment and those unemployed must be maintained.
In addition to creating increases for the actual insured population, there is the second part of these proposals which I have indicated. We are bringing a new class into insurance. It is the class of those who are sometimes called the black-coated workers, though judging from their usual dress I think that designation should be changed, because they generally wear flannels. There is not much of the black coat to be seen nowadays. It is a relic of the old days. Now the insurance of this new class, up to the figure which we are now proposing, was justified apart from the war altogether. In fact I feel that they have


been kept out of unemployment insurance, not on the merits of the question at all but for entirely separate considerations, not the least of which, I venture to suggest, was the influence of a far more powerful trade union than I ever had the good fortune to belong to, and one not associated with unemployment but rather with national health. Having regard to the fact that the Statutory Committee, after careful inquiry, recommended that this class should be brought into insurance and also having regard to the justification which existed before the war, we felt that the position was being accentuated at the present time and might become even more intensified at the end of the war.
Many of the occupations in which people of this class are engaged have been completely disturbed as a result of the war. Many concerns have closed down and these people have had to find employment in other industries, such as munition industries either in their own occupation or in some other occupation. When the time comes and this war is won, and people have to find their places again in industry, I think it very undesirable to leave the position as it was at the end of the last war in regard to non-insured persons. It will be remembered that at that time there was a sudden decision to pay a figure of, I think, 29s. a week out of the Exchequer. That went on for a considerable period and was then suddenly stopped. Nothing contributed more to the disastrous industrial consequences of 1921 onwards than that act. I felt that it was better at this stage to make proper provision so that, at least as a right and not as a charity, these people should be able to draw their insurance benefits.
The position in this respect has been further accentuated during the war by the change in money values. People who were in insurance have had to meet cost of living increases and many people at this moment, just about the £5 a week stage, are being put out of insurance. I think that is a very bad thing especially at a time when that change is not due to any improvement in the standard of living, but merely to the change in money values arising out of the war. We recognise that the previous Parliament passed a Measure for the prevention and relief of

distress but that, I submit, is not enough. Persons of this class will go through untold suffering before they will ask anybody for anything, and even if their position did not mean actual physical suffering it would contribute to the steady demoralisation of character. Waiting for something to turn up is bad. May I submit that when we have to deal with the demobilisation of millions of men, when we have to get them resettled in industry, to have people in that position is positively dangerous. It is explosive material that might lead to disastrous results.
I want to submit two other considerations. If a person is insured, the State knows when he is unemployed. The Exchanges have to register him. The problem that presents itself in the State is revealed and this does assist the House in proposing schemes to grapple with a problem, the intensity and size of which have never been clearly revealed in the past. After 30 stamps have been paid for, these people will come into benefit. They will also come under the assistance scheme, but this proposal keeps the U.A.B. away for at least 180 days. Speaking for myself, I have always followed that line, knowing the character of my own people with whom I have always lived and associated. They would rather have an extension of insurance in order to keep away, to the last possible moment, the revelation of their need. I think that is characteristic of our people. Those who, as a result of economic causes, are compelled in the end to go for assistance, will give you the greatest thanks if you can keep off that day as long as possible and give them benefit as a right. I feel sure that the House will welcome this change in our insurance law. Now as to benefit. We propose to raise the adult rate by 3s.—

Mr. George Griffiths: Do not mind the clock.

Mr. Bevin: The hon. Member will realise that I have been accustomed to speaking at assemblies where I have had to watch the clock. As I say, the increase of benefits proposed is 3s. for men and women, that is, persons aged 21 and over, and 2s. for young men and young women aged 18 to 20. The present man's rate will become £1, and the present woman's rate will become 18s. The young man will get 16s. instead of 14s. and the young woman 14s. instead of 12s. For the


reasons I have mentioned we have left untouched the rates for boys and girls. We propose similar increases, however, for the agricultural scheme, and these rates will be raised by 3s. for men, but for women and young men and young women they will be raised by 2s. The reason for the different treatment for women under the agricultural scheme and under the general scheme is this: It has been agreed between all parties that the rate for women and young men should be kept equal, and in view of that arrangement, I thought it unwise to disturb it. But the agricultural section will have a corresponding increase from 35s. to 38s. as a maximum weekly allowance. It will be recognised that the period of benefit under the agricultural scheme is not so long as it is under the general scheme.
Another change we propose to make is in what is called the "continuity rule." The continuity rule at present provides that no continuous period can be less than three days. I gave consideration to this question, not merely from the point of view of the right to benefit of the man, butt also from the point of view of the use of man-power itself. It is no use denying the fact that the present rule operates in such a way that if a man has completed three days' work and has two days' unemployment he is very often put in the unenviable position of being offered work on the third day and thus having to deprive himself of benefit altogether for the other two days. The result is that many casual workers—I believe it operates very often in the case of short-time work in mines and other occupations—are put almost into a position of having to act dishonestly. I believe that any law which places a man in that position ought to be remedied. I am convinced—although calculated on the present basis I am told it is very costly—that when the scheme is working, and the actual result is shown, the cost, in fact, will be negligible. By removing the temptation which exists at the present, it will mean, often for men on casual work in docks and other occupations, a fourth or even a fifth day's employment.
My third change is in regard to the contributions. The money has to be found for these purposes. I have given consideration to the state of the Fund, and whether this should go hack to the Statutory Committee, whose duty it is to

see that the balance of the Fund is correctly maintained. With memories of the last war, I expected, and, indeed, I endorse the conclusions arrived at by the Statutory Committee, that this Fund should be held at the highest level possible as a reserve to assist in meeting the contingencies which will arise at the end of the war. The readjustments which will have to take place in national and export trade will present far greater difficulties at the end of this war than was the case at the end of the last war. At the end of the last war they were met to some extent by a sudden inflation and the creation of a temporary boom which led everybody into a false paradise. That, I think, is impossible at the end of this war, and we have to face the situation very carefully, having regard to all our obligations—pensions and everything else—and to see that we have not to borrow for these purposes.
In view of the rate of wages and conditions operating at this moment I felt it was preferable to increase the contributions at this stage. We propose, therefore, that the contributions from age 18 shall be increased by one penny for the three parties—the State, the employer and the worker—on the general scheme, and a halfpenny for those under the agricultural scheme. Again, I would remind the House that the agricultural scheme is on an entirely different basis. I am sometimes tempted, when dealing with these questions, to hope that some day we may have one universal scheme, with no exceptions good and bad lives, all taken in We propose that the benefits should operate from 1st August. The increased contributions will be payable from 5th August, and the new class will be brought into insurance on 2nd September. There is a good deal of preparation to be done—stamps, books and registration—in order that the scheme may operate, and I am assured that by 2nd September it will go through smoothly. Even Hitler will not be sufficiently far forward to stop us.
This Bill involves certain Amendments of the principal Act. It may seem a little curious, especially under the agricultural section. For example, Clause 1(3) states that the maximum agricultural benefit shall be 38s. First, the figure was changed to 33s. as a maximum, and later to 35s. and now it will be fixed at 38s. I think that the House should be made


acquainted with the intentions we have in mind, in relation to two other aspects of the Unemployment Insurance scheme, which I propose to deal with by regulation under my existing powers. This House carried a Bill imposing a duty upon me to carry out certain orders directing people to employment. While I am averse to introducing anything of a penal character in association with any of our social services, I would point out that we are placed in a difficulty when a person is convicted of not carrying out an order, and we have then to continue to pay him unemployment benefit. I propose to remedy that by limiting any right of receiving unemployment benefit on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction. The man will still have a right of appeal, however, to the court of referees. The benefit which will be lost will not exceed six weeks although there may be some considerations, such as a technical breach or something of that kind, which would merit a lower period.
In order to protect ourselves, I feel it is necessary to make this change by regulation and it will be for the period of the war only. The other change proposed is in regard to a person following his occupation in his own district, who is offered a job at the standard rate although he is receiving a rate above the standard. On the umpire's decision, that person could go on for nearly four months. During the war period that creates an impossible situation. The House has imposed on me powers to send people to work on work of national importance. Therefore I propose to take this power—that if I can offer a man a job at the normal trade union rate, notwithstanding the fact that he may have a higher rate on the job he left, I shall be entitled to put him on work of national importance in conformity with the Orders passed by the House the other day. I must have this regulation, otherwise the present operation of the umpire's decision is inconsistent with the transference of labour, which is imposed upon me.
If I may summarise the position, there is first the increase of benefit; secondly, the new class in insurance; thirdly, the increase in contributions, and, fourthly, the regulations which I propose to make in order to carry out those other duties imposed upon me. I feel that I have said

sufficient to make this Bill clear and plain to the House and I therefore ask that it shall be given a Second Reading.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I am sure that the House will like me to express its high appreciation of the right hon. Gentleman's maiden speech. It is usually said that a maiden speech in this House is a nerve-racking experience. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman seems actually to have enjoyed it. It is not very often that we have a maiden speech from that Box, and it is not often that we hear a maiden speech marked with such distinction. The right hon. Gentleman has rather surprised us by giving us an outline of the Regulations which he intends to lay down and which will be of a somewhat disciplinary character. I do not suppose the House will be in a position to discuss them today, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they will be so laid that the House will have an opportunity of discussing them. Regulations as a rule are debated when notice is given in a proper way, and these are of such an unusual nature that it will be necessary for the House to have a proper opportunity to discuss them.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of a Bill which reveals some courage and vision. His experience of a lifetime in the trade union movement has enabled him to understand the position of men and women who are subject to unemployment, and not least to intermittent unemployment, which is not in its effect so obvious to the average person. For that reason we welcome the increase of 3s. weekly, which brings a man and his wife up to 30s. We have been so used to receiving 1s. that we can express our gratitude for 3s. The right hon. Gentleman will not consider it ungrateful if we express a wonder why he has kept the limit upon the amount that the agricultural worker may receive in benefit. The limit is 38s. The right hon. Gentleman has been active in fostering the idea of putting the agricultural worker on approximately the same status as the industrial worker. He has rightly said that the man who follows the plough, who does the sowing and all the work of a farm, in winter and summer, is as skilled in his way as the average skilled man in


industry. He has also been largely responsible for fixing wages somewhat approximating industrial standards.
I should like to ask him whether, in the light of the new standards set up for agricultural workers and the recognition of the fact that they are not only as necessary as the industrial workers, but as skilled in their own way, it is not worth while having a second look at the agricultural section, even if it is necessary to deal with the contributions, in order to put the agricultural section of Unemployment Insurance into line with the general section. The raised standard is not unappreciated, but I am sure that very soon the right hon. Gentleman will come up against that problem in the agricultural industry and it is almost inevitable that sooner or later he will have to take stock of the situation. Is it not worth while in the further stages of the Bill to reconsider the limitation of the agricultural workers' benefit? The right hon. Gentleman rightly paid a good deal of attention to the improvement he has made in respect of the intermittent unemployed. We appreciate that he has reduced the three days' waiting period to two.

Mr. Bevin: The continuity rule, not the waiting rule.

Mr. Lawson: I made a mistake in phraseology. I do not think the public realise how harsh this rule has worked on great masses of workers, mainly, in normal times, in the heavy industries, because they are involved more than other people in the export trades. In the mining industry particularly they are very appreciative of the change. It still leaves the two days, however. We have always held that any unemployed day should be paid for. We sometimes hear people talk about the daily wages of men in certain industries, but they never tell us what the annual income of the workers is. Over the year it is almost certain that most of the workers in the heavy industries get small annual incomes. We are not unappreciative of the improvement that has been made, but, in spite of his courage and vision, the right hon. Gentleman will hear more of the two days in the future.
We share with him his satisfaction in at last extending unemployment insurance to what is known as the black-coated worker, although I do not know

whether we should not call him the flannels or plus-fours worker nowadays. As far back as 1934, when the first big Act was passed, the House insisted that the Minister should give some consideration to the condition of the black-coated workers. At that time there was heavy unemployment among this class and instead of getting payment by right, for which they had contributed, they were, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, the subjects of charity. The Press was full of lamentable cases. Since the war broke out most of us have come into contact with men who have had from £500 to £1,000 a year being reduced to very sad circumstances. I remember a man telling me that he had been earning something like £1,600 a year, and when I met him after he had been unemployed for some time he was pleased to grab a job at £3 10s. a week, which he thought was a boon.
We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon at last taking advantage of the report into the investigation which was made at that time, which viewed with favour the insurance of the black-coated workers but which has held fire for years. I know that there will be those on this side of the House, and it may be on the other, who will applaud this decision. I am not sure, however, that all the black-coated workers will give the right hon. Gentleman thanks for it. The great body will, but there will be critics of it. I am glad that the amount has been increased to £420. The amount fixed by the Trades Union Congress, which was purely arbitrary, was £500. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he looked forward to the time when all workers in the professions, irrespective of income, will be within the ambit of the unemployment insurance scheme and when the good lives will pay for the bad. I have never been satisfied, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman could not have been, with the outlook that you only got insured when you wanted something from the fund and that only people who were in need should be included in the unemployment insurance.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Would the hon. Gentleman include Members of Parliament who become unemployed because they are not returned to the House?

Mr. Lawson: I was coming to that point. I had them in mind when I said that the time would come when the House would not accept any limitation of income. It has been my experience in the 20 years I have been here that Members of Parliament are from time to time reduced to lamentable circumstances, which the House has had to consider.
It is a sign of the strength of this great Parliament that at such a critical time we can pause in the midst of graver discussions to consider the social future of our people. We were led to believe that the right hon. Gentleman's task was so overwhelming that it might get him down. I am sure he has been abounding in energy today. He looks well on it. I think it says a lot for his courage and vision that, in view of the great duties which have fallen upon him, he can pause in the midst of those tasks and introduce a Bill which concerns the future of our people. I think everyone agrees that they are worthy of that consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has so worked at his task with others that he has got 100 per cent. of their energy out of them. I have seen the workers recently under conditions when the enemy has visited them under very grievous circumstances. If the House could see them as I have seen them, exhibiting a morale which has to be seen to be believed, it would be agreed that they are people whose futures are worth consideration. The world can take this message from these proceedings to-day, that the right hon. Gentleman has such concern for the workers that we can look forward to a future which will be better for them than it has ever been before.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I should like at once to associate myself with what the last speaker has said as to the pleasure with which we heard the right hon. Gentleman introduce the Bill. I should not in any way diminish what I have just said by saying that the House expected nothing less. He speaks, of course, with peculiar and long knowledge of the problem, with some small aspect of which he has been dealing, and naturally he spoke with authority. If Bills of this kind are to be introduced, I hope he will never introduce one which meets with less general acceptance. If he can do that, he will be able to look back upon his period as a Minister, whether short or long, with unalloyed satisfaction. I find

myself in a position of some little embarrassment, because in the course of my Parliamentary experience I have had to watch through this House, sometimes taking part, some 25 or 30 Bills on Unemployment Insurance, and subsequently watch their effect on the fortunes and in the homes of the people. In the majority of cases I have found myself in active opposition to the Measures which were proposed. In other cases I have met them with qualified approval and in some with modified disapproval. There have been very few—this is one—which one has been able to approach without a word of hostile criticism. There are some aspects of this Bill which give me and my friends great pleasure.
I thought the right hon. Gentleman dealt in a very benevolent way with the history of insurance for the black-coated worker in this House since 1931, when it was approved first of all by a Royal Commission. It was only upon the assurance that the matter would be urgently considered after consultation with the Statutory Committee that the House did not insist on this provision being put into the Bill of 1934. In 1935 it was sent to the Statutory Committee, and they approved it by a majority. There was no difference in principle. The only difference was as to whether the rate of income should be £420 or some other rate. Those who had been advocating the inclusion of this class of worker thought the job was as good as done, but there followed one of the most prolonged, persistent and pestilential pieces of Parliamentary procrastination that have ever been witnessed. No fewer than 40 Questions were addressed to successive Ministers of Labour, and they must have taxed the ingenuity of those whose job it was to draft the replies. They excited my great admiration. Every gradation, every nuance, every shade of attention was given to the matter within the Ministry. No suitable Parliamentary occasion has been missed when the matter has not been raised. As lately as March of last year, when we were called upon to consider an Unemployment Insurance Bill, there were protests in all quarters of the House against the passage of a Bill without this class of worker being included. However, that period has passed, and I am glad to say that in the smallest possible time the benefits of the Bill will begin to accrue.
There is another small thing which makes this an appropriate moment for the introduction of this class of worker to Unemployment Insurance. Multitudes of black-coated workers have within recent months made their first acquaintance with Employment Exchanges through the Military Service Act, and it has not been an unsatisfactory introduction. They have found that Employment Exchanges are human institutions in the overwhelming majority of cases. It is a long road which has no ending or turning—I forget which—but this is a memorable occasion and the final episode in this long-fought contest. I would emphasise the importance of this Bill as evidence of the energy and the humanity of the country in devoting the time and resources of Parliament to the development of social services even in war time. It is only a month or two since we provided some amelioration in the condition of the old age pensioner. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to see that due weight is given to this aspect of the matter by the Ministry of Information. We are being decried in America, Central America and South America as a decadent democracy which cares nothing about these matters. In these countries, and especially in North America, there is great interest in the British social services. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should invite his colleagues in the Ministry of Information to see that the full weight and value of this piece of legislation is put across for the benefit of the British people. The only note of criticism I have heard raised against the Measure is the question why, at a time when the policy should be work for every able-bodied man, it is necessary to introduce a Measure of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman has given us adequate reasons. We in the House know what they are, but others may not be so fortunate. We know that the cost of living, if there were no other reason, compels the change.
The Ministry of Labour for 15 years has been a Ministry of unemployment and of conciliation, and wider and more constructive measures have not been given the same weight, with the result that there is lacking the statistical information and surveys on which it is possible to build up a wider policy. It is inevitable that there is in the Ministry a fixity of purpose and of atmosphere and an inertia

which have to be overcome. It is inevitable in a Ministry which has been orientated as the Ministry has been for the last 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I appear to be presumptuous in saying that. With regard to the continuity rule, I gather that the Bill does not affect what is known as the 12-day rule, but it will bring about better conditions. Attempts have been made to deal with the 12-day rule in its relation to the customary holidays. This is a step which may go a good deal further, I understand. I hope it does. We shall have an opportunity of watching it.
There is one other purely negative virtue about the Bill which has not distinguished Bills on social security which we have had in the last few years. It does nothing whatever to increase the confusion and disorder into which the social services have fallen because there is no single individual or body of persons charged with the duty of surveying their operation as a whole. This is a Bill which it has given us pleasure to receive. We look forward to the benefits which will accrue under it, and we realise that it does nothing to throw anything else out of gear. We realise also that the most urgent question of all in connection with the security services, the overhaul and review in the interests of the recipients and the taxpayer alike, must be left until after the war.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Denman: The right hon. Gentleman will not mistake the brevity of speeches, or even poverty of attendance on the benches, for lack of appreciation of the Measure that he has introduced. We feel on all sides of the House that in these days of vast administrative problems no unnecessary minute of Ministers' time must be taken when they have such important tasks to perform outside. But I feel bound to say a few words of thanks to the Minister, as I am, I suppose, the only surviving Member present who was in at the birth of the original Unemployment Insurance Bill before the last war. Having seen the steady growth of this important structure, I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on putting this additional stone into a splendid building. The only point I want to make, which was referred to by the hon. Member towards the end of his speech, concerns the misfortune


that we have not got a statutory committee surveying the social services as a whole. The benefits of this Bill are obvious to all, and I welcome especially the fact that we have at last made this concession to the black-coated workers to whom promises were made so many years ago. But the real problem in the social services is this, that we have to raise this fresh money from three parties, and in doing so we add to the burdens of industry—both the burdens of the employers and the burdens of the workers—not to mention the contribution which the State itself makes. Are we satisfied that the money is being used to the best possible advantage? I suppose we all agree that there is a practical limit to the contributions that can be got from the workers, at any rate, however much further we can go in taxing the employers.
We all know there are branches of the social services in urgent need of improvement. There are notorious gaps in health insurance. There is the workmen's compensation question, in regard to which we are going to get some improvement, though not a very satisfactory scheme. There is the scheme of family allowances which many of us in this House have advocated for some time and which we believe will make the most effective attack on poverty. All these things have to be financed out of industry in one way or another, and every time we take an extra contribution from the worker we limit the amount available for other things, and much as I welcome this Bill I do not feel convinced that these contributions are being put to the best possible use. If we were fortified by the knowledge that there was a statutory body in charge of the social services as a whole, surveying them continually and making expert recommendations as to the best methods of using the available money, I believe many of us would feel more satisfied with the piecemeal efforts towards improvement which we make from time to time. We recognise that this Bill marks a real advance, and I do not want to lessen the gratitude I feel to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing it, but I would take the opportunity of enforcing the point that we must survey the social services as a whole and that we ought to have a permanent body charged with that duty.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour on doing what his predecessor ought to have done long ago. I could never understand why non-manual workers earning over £250 a year should be treated differently from manual workers, nor why the Government failed to carry out the recommendation of the Statutory Committee to include these black-coated workers in insurance. The Committee gave a good deal of consideration to the inclusion of non-manual workers. They sat for 11 days, taking evidence from employers and workers, and I had the honour of giving evidence on behalf of large sections of the distributive workers, men who were constantly in and out of insurance. There are, for example, the managers of branch shops of multiple firms, who may be earning £250 or less at one time and at another time considerably more. If a slump comes, or there is severe competition from a rival firm, their pay may be reduced below £250, and they have to be insured again. Those men were seldom entitled to benefit when thrown out of work, although they had contributed considerable sums to the Unemployment Fund.
The Minister spoke about the hardships inflicted upon a number of these non-manual workers. I had experience of that after the last war, in a large drapery establishment. Men who had been in charge of departments, shopwalkers and others, men who had contributed largely to the prosperity of their firm, found that after 20 to 30 years' service they were thrown on to the scrap-heap. I know that some of those men had purchased their own houses and that the houses had been heavily mortgaged. They had to dispose of them, their savings were gone in a very short time, and ultimately they were driven to seek relief from public assistance, and, as the Minister well said, that is the very last step taken by men of that class. The evidence submitted to the Statutory Committee related to a variety of occupations—journalists, architects, correctors of the press, textile managers, colliery under-managers, navigation officers, chemists, actors, musicians, theatrical employés, life insurance workers and shop workers.
The distinction between the manual and non-manual workers is, as the Committee rightly pointed out, very unreal, and that


is why I could never understand why a differentiation was made, not only for unemployment insurance, but for national health insurance, and I hope that the Minister of Health will take the hint, now that black-coated workers are to be included in unemployment insurance. The Committee came to the conclusion, as did the Royal Commission of 1932, that the existing remuneration limit for non-manual workers was unsuitable and ought to be raised, and recommended raising it to £400, although admitting that that was lower than the limit which had been urged by witnesses representing the workers. In my evidence I urged that it should be raised to £500. At any rate it is good to know that the present Minister has raised it to £420. The Statutory Committee made the very important statement that the inclusion of non-manual workers would strengthen rather than weaken the Unemployment Fund, and it is good to know that at last the long-delayed claims of these workers are to be acknowledged, and I heartily congratulate the Minister of Labour upon doing the right thing even at this hour.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Lathan: It is the desire of all hon. Members to economise time, but I am sure we should all like to express our appreciation of the substance and the matter of the speech made by the Minister of Labour. There is whole-hearted approval for the Bill which he is now submitting to the House. In that respect his position is an unusual one. I find myself in sympathy with the sentiments so adequately expressed by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White). All of us can join in welcoming what is being done now for our unfortunate fellow citizens who are deprived of the opportunity of earning their own livelihood. The addition to their meagre resources which we are now asked to approve will, in many cases, make the difference between privation and at any rate a reasonable measure of support. Over wide areas there will be sincere gratitude to the Minister for what he has done, and I am confident that no difficulty will arise in regard to the increased contributions which are now to be called for.
That is the position in a general sense, but among a particular group of workers there is a special feeling of gratitude to the Minister for what he has done for the black-coated or non-manual workers.

This section of workers have in their working lives contributed in full measure to the maintenance of our social resources. I make bold to say that if inquiry were made we should find that the men who in Northern France and else where have accepted the heaviest responsibility that any citizen can accept in the defence of his country were to a very large extent non-manual workers. In that and many other directions they have shouldered their responsibilities. To many of us in this House it has always seemed an anomalous and unfair thing that they should be deprived of their share of the facilities which have been provided for others, and that the discrimination should have been made not on the basis of the amount of their earnings, but on the nature of the services they have rendered.
We have been seeking their release from those disabilities. Over and over again in this House and elsewhere attention has been drawn to this unfair discrimination. A Royal Commission has approved of the extension of these facilities to them, and the Statutory Committee recommended it, but successive Ministers of Labour were deaf to the appeal, and never at any time has there been an adequate answer to the appeals made on their behalf or a sound reason given for their continued exclusion. All the time, behind the neat curtains of many a little suburban villa, with its facade of respectability, non-manual workers have been suffering real tragedies arising from the difficulties with which they have been confronted. At long last this injustice is to be removed, largely if not wholly.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) I wish that the recommendations of the Professional Workers Federation or of the Trades Union Congress to raise the salary limit to £500 had been accepted by the Minister; but we are not cavilling at the step, a step in the right direction, which he has taken. We are not unmindful of the difficulties there are in his path, and not ungrateful for what he has done, but we hope and trust that at an early date the excellent example which he has set will be followed by the Minister of Health, and that the discrimination against the non-manual workers in regard to health insurance will be removed. My own view—and I have been associated for a good


many years with questions relating to the position of the non-manual workers—is that while, in particular areas of employment, dangers and difficulties arise from conditions which now exist and from the incidence of modern industrial and commercial developments, on the whole the non-manual worker will be an asset rather than a liability, so far as Unemployment Insurance is concerned. I believe that a similar situation obtains in National Health Insurance. I hope that these considerations will be borne in mind.
One or two questions arise with which I believe the Minister has already been made acquainted, regarding what is looked upon as the faulty drafting of the original Act, in relation to the fixing of standards for determining the income of the non-manual worker. There is a wider variation of standards of remuneration among non-manual workers than exists, perhaps, among manual workers. You can say that the rate of pay per hour, day or week shall determine whether or not a manual worker comes within the range of the salary or wages limitation, but somewhat different conditions exist for the non-manual workers. A considerable number of them render their service, or make their contribution of employment, not upon a basis of weekly or even of daily rate of pay, but rather in a more limited sense. I have in mind at the moment people such as musicians. Musicians may be engaged to contribute orchestral music for only an hour or two hours a day, and be paid what would be regarded as a fairly substantial sum, if it were reckoned on the hourly basis, for their musical contribution; but regard has to be paid to the necessary practice, rehearsals, provision of music, and a number of other things which are not always apparent.
The Minister would be well advised in connection with the position of such workers, of whom there is a considerable number—the tendency is now to multiply the number rather than to reduce it—to take into account their annual earnings rather than their hourly rates, and, in connection with this matter, he would find trade unions, professional associations and the Trades Union Congress able to assist him with the fund of experience which is at their disposal, in order that his intentions may be completely and satisfactorily discharged and the wording

of the Act altered in such a way as to meet the situation. Having said that, I wish to join again with other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on the steps which he has taken and the nature of the legislation submitted, which, I am sure will meet with universal approval.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I join with other hon. Members in congratulations to the Minister upon his maiden speech. I was delighted when he came to the House of Commons, and I was more delighted when he went to the Ministry of Labour. Perhaps I expected too much. I thought when he got to the Ministry that he would revolutionise it, because he would not run it on the same lines as those on which it has been run for so many years. Perhaps because I expected so much I am disappointed with the Bill. One of my friends, speaking this afternoon, said that the Minister had displayed vision in introducing the Bill; well, I cannot find the vision in the Bill. The Minister did not make out a case for the increase of contributions. He omitted something which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make good: he did not tell us what he expected to get by the increase of contributions. We were left completely in the dark as to why the contributions were being increased and what that increase would mean.
Then, there is an increase of benefits. Some of my friends have said: "Look at the Bill. It increases benefits by 3s. per week"; but that is just what we might have expected from the old Minister of Labour, who was continually coming here with small increases of benefits. As a matter of fact, the increase means 20s. for a man, but the cost of living has increased during the last eight weeks, and there is a prospect of it increasing still further in the next few weeks. There is no prospect of the Minister bringing in another Bill, yet he proposes to increase benefits by 3s. per week, a sum which is not as good as the public assistance committees are paying in the county of Durham.
When I decided to speak I made up my mind to talk to the Minister and give him a little good advice. He seems to need a little bit of good advice in starting in this new office. I am sorry that he is not in his place. What he needs to do


is to go to some of the local authorities which are run by Labour men. As a matter of fact, in the county of Durham he will find the committees paying 30s. 6d. to a man and wife, in contrast to the 29s. which will be paid after the Bill comes into operation. The right hon. Gentleman is increasing the benefit for a man by 3s. to 20s., and the wife's benefit is to stay at 9s. We can go through the list and see that, in the county of Durham, some of the younger members of families are receiving more than the Minister proposes to pay. There is nothing in the Bill about which the Minister may throw up his hat and feel that he has done something wonderful. In my opinion it is disgraceful. With the huge fund which is at the disposal of the Minister and the big balance that he has in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, it is not fair of him to say: "I am giving you 3s. more. I am giving you something wonderful. You ought to jump at it with both hands, and get down on your knees and thank God."
I wish the Minister had told us the balance in the Unemployment Insurance Fund at the moment. One remembers not very long ago when £40,000,000 was taken out of the Fund. One would like to know what the balance is at the moment. I am glad that the Minister of Labour has now come back to his place; I will inform him that I was saying that there is nothing in the Bill about which he needs to throw up his hat. Apart from the entrance into the Fund of the £420 people, the big thing in the Bill is the 3s. increase in benefit, and the other benefits that follow. Durham public assistance committees pay more to those who are receiving Poor Law relief than the Minister proposes to pay under the Bill. The Minister is paying 20s. to a man and to the wife 9s. He is allowing that position to stand, which means that a man and wife receive 29s. In Durham County last week the public assistance committees increased their scales to meet the increased cost of living, and they are paying to a man and wife 30s. 6d. per week; so that there is nothing in the Bill.
The Minister ought to have looked forward. The cost of living not only has increased but will increase more in the next few weeks. The Minister will not be able to come to the House of Commons

with a Bill every week to increase benefits. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why he agreed to such a small figure as 3s. per week. We had the figure of 20s. for a man in 1924. When Labour came into office in 1924 it made the benefit for a man 20s. a week, but the hard, bad times through which we have passed since 1924 have prevented the fund ever getting back to that figure. What is the condition of the Fund? That is the question which should settle a matter of this kind. What is the balance in the Fund? The Minister did not tell us today, and he did not justify so small a figure as 3s. I have mentioned this 3s., but I could deal with all the benefits which the Minister is proposing in the Bill and could compare them with what is given by the public assistance committees in Durham. I could prove that they are paying more to everybody than the Minister now proposes.
I have dealt with three of the questions with which the Minister deals in the Bill, and that leaves us with only the item of the continuity rule. I say, in the Minister's presence, that when he came to this House and agreed to take on the Ministry of Labour I was hopeful. I thought that we had got a really strong and forceful man at last into the Ministry, and I expected big things from the Minister. I still expect big things; I believe that he is the right man in the right place. There is no question of that, and that is the reason why I am talking to him and trying to get him to see that he does not need to go on the old lines of the Ministry of Labour. I have been 18 years in this House, and I have seen a lot of Ministers of Labour stand at that Box. What happens is that Ministers come and go. They change, but the Ministry of Labour never changes. It is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Mr. Buchanan: What about when Maggie was there?

Mr. Batey: It was worse. I want the Minister of Labour to change the policy of the Ministry. Unless he does so, he will not be the success in that office that we expect him to be. There is another point that I should mention. The Minister comes forward and says, "In addition to that 3s. I am going to take another day off the man under the continuity rule."
I remember some of the Northern Members of Parliament meeting the late Minister of Labour not many weeks ago, and putting before him a request that we had from the Durham Miners' Association that the three days should be swept away. The Minister of Labour promised to consult with the advisory committee and see whether he could use any influence with that committee. When it appears that only one day has been taken away instead of the three days, the Minister does not seem to have been very successful with that advisory committee. Will the Minister tell us why the time has not come—if it has not come now it will never come—for sweeping away these three days? We believe that those three days cannot be justified.
I want to deal with two problems which are not in the Bill. One of the beauties of the Second Reading of a Bill is that one may talk not only about what is in the Bill but also about what should be in the Bill. When the Minister came here with an Unemployment Bill I should have thought that he would have dealt first of all with the unemployment problem. Among the thousands of unemployed men there are a large number who suffer from partial disablement contracted in industry, and who are on the Unemployment Insurance with no hope of getting work. I should have thought that the Minister would have dealt with that problem. He should remember that there is still a huge army of unemployed in this country, in spite of all his efforts. I was not altogether satisfied when I heard the Minister of Labour answer a question which was put to him by an hon. Member. He was asked whether he would appeal to the mayors of the various corporations to get people to work during weekends and nights, digging trenches to prepare for defence. The Minister did not turn down the question, as I should have thought he would do. He led me to believe that he thought there was something in the suggestion. Can there be anything in a suggestion that men should take spades and dig trenches for nothing at a time like this, when there is a huge army of unemployed? If trenches have to be dug, the Minister of Labour should see that the unemployed do it. We have in Durham 6,000 men unemployed, and he could find no better men for digging trenches. If trenches have to be dug

he should get these men to do it and pay them, instead of encouraging other folk to dig trenches for nothing. That is stupid.
I should also have thought that, when the Minister came to the House with an Unemployment Bill, he would have faced the means test problem. I would have liked him to have told us about this. There cannot be many people being paid under the Unemployment Assistance Board, yet the cost of administration still runs into £5,000,000 a year, as it does with the Unemployment Insurance Fund. A sum of £10,000,000 a year is being paid out of the two Funds, and the means test is still being applied to the poorest in this country. I should have expected the Minister to consider the abolition of the means test. Until he abolishes the means test we shall not be able to look forward to the future with any more hope than we have done up to the present. In conclusion, I would like to say in the Minister's presence that I enjoyed his maiden speech this afternoon. I am glad that he is Minister of Labour, but I want the Ministry of Labour to get a move on and try to solve the problem of unemployment.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: First of all, I desire to express my regret that I did not hear the Minister's speech this afternoon. I have been engaged all the afternoon in a task in which he used to be engaged more than I, with employers, trying to get a wage standard for my men, and he knows how difficult that is. I wish he had come to this House years ago and under different circumstances. It is a great pity that the only excuse we had for bringing him here was the war. I wish a man of his capacity could have entered this House without, as it were, being almost forced upon us, instead of coming here in the ordinary way.
I do not wish to be unfair about the Bill. I remember, as the Minister must remember, back in the old days when the Trades Union Congress gave evidence to the Blanesburgh Committee. The plea we then made was for some of the things which we have now secured. We asked for £1 a week for the man, 10s. for the wife and 5s. for each child. We were then turned down, and, in fact, subsequent Parliaments turned us down, including the Labour Government then in


office. We were then told that the country could not afford it. It seems a terrible state of affairs when we are spending millions a day on armaments that we can now afford to raise the allowance for the man to £1 a week, when we could not afford it back in those days under different conditions.
I would say to the Minister that I welcome the continuity rule in so far as it marks an improvement in the conditions of many men who work two days a week fairly regularly. I know the case that the Minister or his Department makes for the continuation of the waiting period. They say, in effect, that there is a large number of men who go from job to job and are unemployed only for a day in a week, and that if such men were paid unemployment benefit, it would add a huge cost to the administration of the Fund. I think that that case could be met. It should be noted that the waiting period is not altered; it still remains at three days. A man may be out two days, and it is true that over a period of some years you can link up his "two in six," but if he is out two days in a fortnight, he gets nothing. I would point out that the great mass of people who are affected are the ordinary simple folk, and there is a likelihood of terrible confusion being created among them. My experience is that there are many things that I myself do not understand, and I think that Unemployment Insurance should be made simple to understand. If the Minister cannot concede the abolition of the waiting period, then I would suggest it should be reduced to two days. The three-day waiting period will arouse a conflict of view in people's minds. I spoke to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), and he did not follow the point about the two days and the three days as clearly as he should. If that can be said of a capable Member such as he is, the Minister should look into the matter; he should bring the two things into one and make a two-day waiting period instead of the three.
With regard to the figure of £420, I make no criticism against raising it to that amount. I have always thought it should be raised, and that large categories of workers who have been excluded, including railwaymen, should be brought into the Unemployment Insurance Fund. People such as Members of Parliament, policemen and railwaymen are liable to

be dismissed; they do get dismissed. When that happens they become a charge on unemployment assistance. If they are not below a certain limit, they are a charge on the Poor Law. If I was increasing the amount to £420, I would have brought within range large numbers who are now outside the Fund. The Minister of Labour should speak to the Minister of Health, because I do not think the position can remain tenable with a figure of £420 for Unemployment Insurance and not for Health Insurance.
I now come to a matter for raising which I must apologise to the House, because it must have become almost an obsession with me. I raise it again in the hope that with a new Minister I may have more success than with other Ministers. It is a problem which I never forget. I remember the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and I, with one or two other hon. Members, occupying seats on these benches in 1931. We were small in numbers, but we can remember, possibly more clearly than other hon. Members, the force of the economy cuts. It has been said that those economy cuts have been restored, but they have never been restored, and I desire to make a plea for their full restoration. The biggest cut of all and the greatest saving was in benefit. The greatest saving of all was that a man or a woman was entitled to a standard benefit for 30 stamps in two years. They were, roughly speaking, entitled to a standard benefit of a year and four months. The economy measure reduced the standard period from one year and four months to six months. That cut has never been restored, although every other economy cut that was made has been restored. I shall never forget that the most serious cut that was made at that time was that which threw men on to the means test 10 months earlier than had been the case before. I would have restored that cut even before I increased the benefit, because I have looked upon it as a holy covenant that all the economies made should be restored. I earnestly ask the Minister to see to that.
There is another cut which has occurred since the war. Until the war a man with, say, five years' stamps was entitled to, roughly, 12 months' standard benefit. Since the war, for reasons I have never been able to follow, really


without the consent of the House of Commons—I know it was put through one night when we were passing Bills by the dozen, and nobody said a word—that period of standard benefit has been reduced to six months. Take the case of the printing trade. It is suffering terrible unemployment because of forces over which none of us has any control. Men with long periods of employment are coming out now, and they do not know anything about the new law. To be frank, there are many Members of this House who do not know it. Some time ago I raised the matter with the hon. Member for Spennymoor, and he knew about it for the first time only that night. The Government told us that it was a question of administration, and of difficulty about looking up books; but if that cut had taken place in connection with any well-to-do section of the community, if it had concerned Income Tax or Super-tax, there would have been a row in this House, and people would not have been put off with some flimsy excuse about the difficulty of looking up books. The Minister, of course, has no responsibility for that, as he was not in the House. I put it to him that the economy cut should be restored, and, even if he will not do that, that men should be brought back to the position that existed before the war.
Then there is the question of children's allowances. Some time ago we increased the allowance for the fourth child by 1s. I suggest that there should be another increase in children's allowances. It is impossible to maintain a child on the standard benefit rates. Whatever our views, there is one thing which the war will teach all of us—it is something we should have learned long ago—and that is to try to raise the children above the battle of our economic system. I ask the Minister to study the standards of the child life of this country. Personally, I have little hopes for human life in the future: most of what I believed in has gone; but one thing that I have seen in my native City of Glasgow has been a greater care of the children by their parents. Today I see men taking their children off to the Employment Exchange, leaving them at the door while they sign on, and then taking them to the park. That is creditable. I ask the Minister to see that the standard of life

for the unemployed man's child is raised at least to the standard which he and I used to advocate at the Trades Union Congress, of which he was perhaps the most prominent member.
It is often said that we have no means test in connection with standard benefit. That is not true. We have a means test in connection with standard benefit, but it is not easily understood. It operates when a man claims, sometimes, even for his wife, but much more often when he claims for his mother. That is what happens. A man claims benefit for himself and then for his mother, who usually has a widow's pension or old age pension of 10s. a week. He says: "I pay into the house 30s. a week." Add 30s. and 10s., and you get 40s. That is divided by two, which allows each £1. The man gets his unemployment benefit. But suppose the man gives his mother only 295. a week. That makes a total of 39s., or 19s. 6d. each. It is then held that he contributes less to the mother than the amount of her pension and consequently does not maintain her. What maintains the mother? Surely it is not the 10s. pension; it is the 39s. But that is how the reckoning is made. It is worse when there are three or four sons in the household, all of whom contribute something. Perhaps the youngest son makes a claim, but it is said that he does not maintain her. The next son makes a claim, and it is said that he does not maintain her either. So it goes on. None of the sons, it is held, maintains her; but the fact is that she is maintained. There are not many Members in this House who can go through the calculations which would be necessary to make a claim for the mother. The fact is, first, that she is the mother. That is never in dispute. Secondly, it should be said that the man does maintain her. I ask the Minister to stop this juggling with mathematical calculations, which does not do any individual credit.
Finally, I want to express again my regret at not having heard the Minister. I trust that in this office he will take advantage of his great opportunities. I am not an optimistic man. Although I am a younger man than the hon. Member for Spennymoor, he has retained an optimism which I have not. We hear from every Government that it is planning, and that it has constructive ideas. It reminds me of a fellow to whom I was


talking at an Employment Exchange. He said, "You say 2.5 plus 1.5 makes four, and everybody says that you are intelligent. But because I say that two and two make four, they say that I am a mutt." There is a great deal in that. When you screw up your brows and do involved calculations, people think you are clever. It is the same with Governments, which talk about planning, and are able to get away with it. The Minister has started in what I consider one of the biggest offices a man can hold. He is privileged to hold that office, and I am certain that he will fill it with great capacity, because, while I differ from him in many ways, I have never concealed my regard for his abilities. I say, frankly, that in my view a great man is not one who goes out to tackle big things which he cannot master. A man who cannot do the small things will never succeed in the big things. If he tackles the small things, he will, when his time comes, finish with a record of which he need not be ashamed.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I would like to add a word of congratulation to the Minister on his maiden speech. I would particularly like to say how much I think it is of value that when most people are thinking in terms of destruction he is thinking in terms of construction. When most of us are thinking in terms of war, it is good to find that he has the vision to think in terms of postwar. The necessity for thinking in terms of post-war and unemployment insurance is apparent to everyone who went through the last war and experienced the problems which befell those who lived at that time. Whether or not the criticisms that we have heard from the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and the hints that have been given by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) may be considered to be in too narrow a spirit or out of place at this time, the fact that they are made should indicate to the Minister the need for accomplishing something over and above what he regards as necessary for the moment. I was interested in the suggestions which he made regarding the clarification which was necessary, and I hope that in that respect he will give thought to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Gorbals in

connection with maintenance and the proof of maintenance by the applicant.
Questions of dependency in connection with the Employment Exchange are the most peculiar thing in the world. As a trade union secretary, who had to deal with these things regularly before coming to this House, I was always amused, after getting over my amazement, to find that the more an applicant contributed, the better chance he had of getting an allowance. I had thought that if an individual was lowly paid and was keeping a widowed mother, his low wage would entitle him to an allowance from the Employment Exchange. That was how I, in my innocence, imagined it, but you can judge of my surprise when, after having conducted and lost two or three cases, I discovered that the more an individual earned the better chance he had of getting it. The average wage of weavers in Lancashire went up immediately and was sufficient to enable them to come in, and I make no apology for saying that, because I believe it was the intention of Parliament to bring them in.
I believe that it is this silly system of proving dependency which is responsible for it. If the mother is contributing 10s. and if the main support of the household does not contribute more than 30s., it means in most instances that there has to be something almost approaching dodging of the law. I was glad to hear the Minister say that if there was anything which led to dodging, it proved that the law was a bad law, and I believe that that is true. Perhaps it would interest some hon. Members to know that if a widowed mother happens to be paying 1s. a week insurance on her own life or on the life of someone else her contribution to the family income is only 9s. That means that, if the combined wage comes to less than 36s., she is entitled because she has only contributed one-half. That certainly requires looking into, and if the Minister could find time for nothing else except the clarification of that matter it would certainly be worth while. I could not quite follow him when he argued for a continuance of the scheme, although he expressed a desire that some day it would be possible to bring agricultural and industrial insurance under one scheme.
I am glad that we have taken a step forward with regard to the black-coated


worker. I never wore a black coat at work, although I had the unfortunate experience of being left out of insurance just before I came to this House. Owing to the Insurance Act, my wage had come down to just under £5, when I had the good fortune to be elected to this House. On the week that I came to this House, I could have been insured under the National Health Insurance Act had I not been elected, because I was earning under £5 a week. I had suffered a reduction in salary, and yet I felt it was worth while because it was bringing me into unemployment and health insurance at that time. I failed, however, because of the fact that I came to the House of Commons, and my tenure of security is much less here than it was in the job that I then had. I am debarred from being in the insurance scheme because I am paid £600 a year. National insurance should surely mean the insurance of all. If the insurance companies ran their schemes on the same basis as national insurance is being run, they would not get anywhere, because we take in those who are least able to pay while we cut out those best able to pay and least likely to draw upon insurance. Why are teachers not in the scheme? It is because they have security of tenure and a superannuation scheme. Members of Parliament have been mentioned. If they can prove that they are workers, they ought to come in—though that might be the biggest difficulty, particularly if the definition is as well drawn as that of dependency. I could never understand how and why so many sections were excluded from insurance. Now we have increased the scale to £420, I hope that before very long we shall do something to make the insurance scheme really universal.
I am glad that the three days' waiting period has been reduced to two. I believe it will be an improvement. Perhaps it is not much of an improvement, in my own trade, but I am glad there is to be an improvement in a number of trades in my district. Miners particularly have suffered severely in this respect. I have never been able to understand why there should be a waiting period at all. This is the kind of case that I have put in this House before and I will do it again. A man insures against fire. When a fire takes place he receives the insurance payment

provided he has an English-sounding name and can convince the insurance company that he is not accustomed to doing that sort of thing. A man has a plate-glass shop window and he insures it against breakage. Immediately it is broken he makes his claim. It has not to be broken three times before he can do so. But if a man is claiming unemployment insurance benefit he has to be out of work three days. Why is this? Because it is workers' insurance. We have to get down to this matter. If the scheme, as it is now run, cannot provide benefit from the first day, the matter ought to be inquired into. The position is similar under National Health Insurance. I submit that a case has been made out for the abolition of waiting days altogether.
I welcome this Measure very much. One of the things from which Lancashire has suffered for years but from which, fortunately, it is not suffering today, owing to the war and the demands of the Services, is that of underemployment. There is nothing in this Bill which in postwar years will touch the fringe of the problem of underemployment which we have experienced in Lancashire for many years. I hope that the new Minister, when times are nearer normal and he has sufficient time, will look at the problem of under-employment. Successive Ministers have suggested that it has baffled them. I hope he will do something in order to alleviate the lot of those people who are called upon, through no fault of their own, to suffer from underemployment. I was interested to hear the Minister say that some of the new powers would make it impossible for case law in Unemployment Insurance to be operated. Everybody interested in the subject who has anything to do with administration, knows that it is not so much the regulations on Unemployment Insurance that appear in the Act of Parliament as the case law established by umpires' decisions, which has to guide those people who are attempting to help unfortunate members of societies. Time and again, when cases have come before courts of referees, one finds an umpire's decision covering such cases. It is within the purview of the chairman of the court of referees to obtain these decisions for his assistance, and trade union secretaries can obtain them also by paying for them. Many cases


have been decided and precedents established. The Minister suggested that it would be necessary for him to make new regulations which might cut across the decisions of the umpire. Would it not be possible either now or at as early a date as possible, to introduce a consolidating Bill to bring the case law and the umpires' decisions together so as to simplify unemployment administration? It is not easy at any time.
I am glad of the increases in benefit. The one thing that the unemployed understand is the benefit, and they also realise that it is not sufficient. They are always concerned as to what disqualifies them from obtaining benefit, and the simpler the position can be made, the better it will be, not only for the Minister and those who advise him, but for those whose difficult duty it is to administer the Act. After the war we shall be faced with an unemployment question. That is inevitable. We are faced with it now. It unemployment schemes can be administered simply, it will assist not only this House but the Minister himself to get the best out of the people as far as confidence in his administration and in those who are administering the law is concerned.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: As I listened this afternoon to the Minister moving the Second Reading of this Bill I felt that he was indeed to be congratulated on having for his first Bill a Measure the subject matter of which must have been so congenial to him. If, as we all hope may be the case, he has a long Parliamentary career in front of him, I trust he may always be equally fortunate in the Bills which he has to introduce. As to the wisdom of introducing the present Bill at this moment, I have always thought it most unfortunate that the question of the rates to be paid for unemployment benefit should be, as it is, the sport of party politics. It means that from time to time all parties in turn lay themselves open to charges of mass bribery at Election times. If any Government is to tackle this question there cannot be a more suitable Government than one which, like the present, enjoys the support of all the principal parties in the State. For my part, I only wish it had been possible for the Minister to evolve some permanent scheme which would take the question of the appropriate

rates out of party politics altogether. With regard to the particular rates in this Bill I heard the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) suggest that some of the rates were too low, but if he were sitting where the Minister sits and had to introduce a Bill himself, containing the rates which he has in his mind, it would be for some other Member to get up and object to those rates as insufficient.

Mr. Buchanan: If I were the Minister I would be pleased at that, because it would give me the opportunity of stating my reason for increasing the rates.

Mr. Lewis: Whether the hon. Gentleman was pleased or sorry, it would occur. That is one of the inescapable difficulties of legislation of this kind. As regards the proposed benefits I am sure everyone in the House will agree that the increases will be very welcome to those who are to receive them. On the question of black-coated workers, I confess I felt considerable sympathy with the speech made earlier this afternoon by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), in which he laid stress on the fact that this extension of insurance was long overdue. I believe that to be true and I hope very much that whatever may happen in the future to these particular rates, this extension of insurance to workers with a higher rate of wage or salary will, at any rate, remain a permanent feature of our Unemployment Insurance system.
There is one other point on which I would like to touch, and one which we have not heard much about this afternoon, although the Minister alluded to it. It is the question of the solvency of the Fund. It is always much easier and more agreeable to spend than to save and there is always the risk that when employment is good, the resulting accumulations in the Fund should be the cause of increased benefit beyond what may be justified having regard to the uncertainty of the future. I think we are all agreed that when this war is over we are likely to be faced with a period of great difficulty as far as employment is concerned—

Mr. Silverman: Why?

Mr. Lewis: —owing to the dislocation of trade and industry as a result of the war and the fact that when the war ends


there will probably be dislocation in getting men back to normal work. It has been experienced in the past and will be experienced in the future.

Mr. Silverman: I always try to follow this argument but I have the utmost difficulty in understanding what it means. The longer the war goes on and the more destruction it brings with it, the more its ravages will have to be repaired. Will that not be sufficient to absorb the energies of our returning men? They will have to add to the wealth of the world which has been lost.

Mr. Lewis: I should have thought there were two obvious illustrations of the difficulty. One is that a vast machine is being created for making instruments of destruction which will no longer be required when the war is over. The other is that no man can foresee what impediments, difficulties and changes there may be in the channels of international trade after the war. It is no doubt true that in an ideally organised society there should be work for all, at all times, but I am not dealing with anything of that kind; I am dealing with practical politics and I should have thought that after the war there was bound to be a period when the problems connected with unemployment would be very difficult. If the war goes on, as I fear it may, for some considerable time, there should be a low level of unemployment during those years. If so, I hope opportunity will be taken to allow the Fund to accumulate and strengthen so that when difficult days do come there may be a large and strong Fund on which to draw in the years ahead.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: May I add my appreciation of the Minister, who has been almost overwhelmed by congratulations today? In future, he may receive "more kicks than ha'pence" so he had better take these words to-day and enjoy them as long as he can. It is notable that in a time of total war we, in a democratic country, can spend these hours in considering social problems and debating matters of unemployment. This Bill has been appreciated by most Members and will, I believe, be appreciated still more by those outside who are to benefit. Some will receive increased benefits and all will receive benefit by the reduction of the waiting period from three days to two.

The inclusion of non-manual workers ought to have the effect of bringing them closer to the manual workers of this country. Just as we believe that the addition of agricultural workers to the unemployment scheme some time ago will bring agricultural and industrial workers more closely together so we believe that there will now be greater unity among all members of this society of ours.
I want to say a few words in connection with the agricultural side of unemployment because I feel a little ashamed that it has hardly been referred to by the various speakers who have taken part in the Debate so far. I seem to be the lone agricultural representative to-day. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has always been sympathetic to agricultural workers. He has shown his interest by increasing their wages lately, for which we are profoundly grateful. The increase is not enough yet, but it is a step in the right direction towards smoothing out the differences between industrial and agricultural districts. No longer will there exist the great gulf which has hitherto existed between the agricultural and industrial sections of the community. By the increase of wages in the agricultural world, the standard of life there will be improved. Yet when agricultural workers come on to unemployment benefit they will receive something less than those who are in the general scheme. There is not, and never has been, any justification for less unemployment benefit for the agricultural worker than for other workers in society. The limit which is placed upon the amount paid weekly to agricultural workers has been increased from 35s. to 38s. a week for which they will be glad, but they would be still more glad to see that limit abolished altogether.
With regard to non-manual workers, their case has been overwhelmingly made out in this House on many occasions. We are all glad to see them included in the new Measure. At one time there was an inclination among non-manual workers to fancy they would never need unemployment insurance. Twenty-five to 30 years ago they rather disdained the idea of being brought into the scheme at all. They were what was called the lower middleclass society of this country, but the last 20 years of depression in trade have changed all that. Many businesses have been shattered and many workers, who felt secure for life, have been thrown


out of employment. Now, however, those workers will be included in a scheme which will bring them benefit at a time when it is most needed. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that he hoped to see the day when there would be an all-comprehensive unemployment insurance scheme, linked up, if possible, with our health insurance scheme. When we look into the question of the administration of these various schemes, the situation is rather alarming. In connection with the Unemployment Insurance scheme, we find that for the year ended 31st December, 1939, there was paid in benefit £40,690,000 and that to pay that amount £5,608,262, or slightly over 14 per cent. was required for administrative expenses. When we look at the agricultural scheme it is still more appalling. During the year mentioned, men were paid benefits amounting to £831,000 while administrative expenses accounted for no less than £196,802, or over 23 per cent. There is a job for the Minister. He must get down to the task of consolidating all schemes into one comprehensive scheme and have an exhaustive inquiry into administrative expenses to see whether he cannot bring forward in the near future, an even better Bill than this.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I also would like to join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on introducing this Bill today and if I might I would recall to him the fact that during the last war, he and I had the privilege and opportunity of touring the United States to put the case for the British workers, in connection with the last war. I congratulate him therefore especially on the fact that on his first appearance in the House to introduce a Bill, the Measure of which he has charge should be so successful. I have intervened chiefly to deal with one point which I put to the Minister at the request of the London County Council and some of the larger local authorities in the country, and in connection with which I should like to have an assurance from him. It arises out of Clause 4 of the Bill, which proposes to bring within the scope of Unemployment Insurance all non-manual workers whose rate of remuneration is between £250 per annum and £420 per annum. In asking that consideration should be given to this matter, I am not unappreciative of the point raised by my

hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson). I agree with him that all non-manual workers should be brought within the scheme, if possible, and that there should be no exceptions, but we have to deal with facts as they are.
Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, the Minister has power to grant exceptions to certain persons, first, if the employment is permanent in character; secondly, if the employed person had completed three years' service in the employment; and, thirdly, if, in the Minister's opinion, it is unnecessary that he should be insured under the Act. Under these provisions, the Minister excepted all employés of the London County Council over 21 years of age and with three years' continuous full-time employment. That was the position at the outbreak of the war, but under the Unemployment Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Regulations, 1939, it was provided that, as from 6th September, 1939, and during the operation of the Regulations, the power of the Minister to grant a certificate of exception to identified persons should not be exercised. Therefore, since 6th September, 1939, it has not been possible to identify further members of the council's staff under the certificate of exception granted to the council, and the number of employés who remain insured under the scheme, but who would have been excepted but for the operation of the Emergency Regulations, is about 2,000 per annum. With the increase in the income limit for insurability from £250 to £420 per annum, a very large number of the council's whole-time permanent employés will be brought within the Unemployment Insurance Scheme. The Minister will see that a very anomalous position will arise if the provision in the Bill remains as it is. Employés receiving less than £250 per annum who were identified under the certificate of exception before 6th September last remain, and will remain, excepted, while employés who receive between £250 and £420 per annum will not be excepted.

Mr. Buchanan: Could not this be put right by the local authorities themselves by bringing in all those below £250?

Mr. Ammon: I want to make clear again that, while I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend, we have to deal


with facts as they are. Agreements have been made which have to be carried out. I ask the Minister to give consideration to this point. It seems desirable that the Emergency Regulations to which I have referred should be amended so as to enable employés of local authorities with more than three years' service who are receiving less than £420 per annum to be identified under the certificate of exception and thus excepted from the scheme. I make this suggestion at the request of the local authorities, headed by the London County Council. Having regard to the position which I have described, I should be glad if the Minister could give an assurance that the Emergency Regulations will be amended so as to enable the system of certification and identification which was in force up to the outbreak of the war to apply in the case of all permanent employés of local authorities.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I intervene in the Debate to say a word or two about the new Minister of Labour. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that it is rather a pity that it has taken a war to get the right hon. Gentleman into this House. I believe it is true to say that the right hon. Gentleman has resisted entering political life for some time, and no doubt he has been doing very valuable work outside; but I regard his appointment as Minister of Labour as something quite different from any of the other new appointments in the Government. It is different, for instance, from the appointment even of the new Minister of Supply, because it is—I know that some hon. Members may resent the phrase—a step in the right direction towards the right conception of a corporate organisation in this House. I know that some hon. Members will not agree with that, and will say that it is possible to have a political head, who has got a good head, and he can tackle any job. I do not believe that. I believe that political life today has become so complicated that, if we are to get efficiency in every Department of State, it is necessary for Ministers to have that lifelong knowledge which, for instance, in this case the right hon. Gentleman quite clearly has.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Many changes will have to be made.

Mr. Lindsay: That may be so, but there is strong feeling on the matter outside the House. It was a refreshing moment this afternoon to hear the right hon. Gentleman making his maiden speech, which sounded very little like a maiden speech, because of his knowledge of the subject. I do not want to say anything about what seems to me to be a perfectly straight-forward problem of raising benefits and raising contributions because the cost of living has also risen. As a matter of fact, it is a slightly profit-making policy as far as unemployment insurance is concerned.
The other point which has been referred to by many hon. Members—the inclusion of a new group of men and women erroneously called the black-coated workers—raises a whole series of questions which certainly I shall not go into, and to which the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) referred with regard to the London County Council. But I think the time has come—the middle of a war may not be the moment to do it—for somebody at the Ministry of Labour to be thinking out, from within the Ministry of Labour, the policy of that Department. In my limited experience—it is a long way back to 1934, when we fought for the 3s. for a child, and things have moved on a bit—the Ministry of Labour has never kept to its word with regard to the Unemployment Assistance Board. That Board has been a paying-out body. The Employment Exchanges are excellent in paying out the required sums of money, they are excellent in transferring people from one occupation to another; but they fail—and they fail because of the organisation of the Ministry—in helping to find jobs. I do not mean the creation of new employment, for obviously that is not their task; but the right hon. Gentleman did say, in introducing the Bill, that in the case of factories and industries where the Board of Trade instructions have caused a cutting down of labour, and in many cases almost a closing down of factories, there would be very great difficulties in transferring the labour to munitions factories and other factories. That is true, and there are a good many other things that will become true before very long with regard to pockets of unemployment, especially in places like London.
There is one question I want to ask the Minister. I suppose there is some reason


for introducing the amount of £420 at this moment, but I should be glad if the Minister could tell us what that reason is. All hon. Members are interested in what is going to happen after the war, but they are still more interested at this time in getting the maximum employment in this country. I hope that before very long, if it will not waste the Minister's time, we shall have a Debate on the Ministry of Labour in order to see how far, under the new régime, the right hon. Gentleman is making it possible to transform the Ministry of Labour into a Ministry of Employment, and what changes he regards as possible. I welcome his appointment as the most significant—indeed it is a portent—of all the new appointments, and like every other hon. Member, I wish him good luck in his new office.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I do not wish to prolong the Debate or unduly to widen its scope, but the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) has made it easier for me to raise the point to which I want to refer. Speeches made by hon. Members opposite seem to contemplate—and they are justified in doing so by that part of the Minister's speech which referred to the importance of building up a reserve in the Unemployment Insurance Fund against possible postwar developments—that when the war comes to an end, there may be a situation similar to that which existed for a year or two after the end of the Great War. I hope that hon. Members, and especially Ministers, will not allow their minds to be too greatly dominated by any such ideas. It has been said by one hon. Member that in an ideally run society there would always be work for everybody, but that we must not contemplate an ideally run society. Why not? We may not very quickly achieve it, but if we do not contemplate it, we shall never get near to achieving it, or improving things. If anyone imagines that when the war comes to an end, whoever may win, the world and this country will go back to those bad old days when millions of able-bodied citizens, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled, were content to stand at street corners for the best years of their life, their energies and skill unused, contemplating in idleness the unrepaired ravages

of war, I think they are making a very great mistake. That system is dead. The bottle-necks of capitalism are being broken by the very force of circumstances, and I suppose that the Minister himself would be the first to admit that what brought us to the present pass was not the fault of this, that or the other individual, but the faults of a system that had to be broken down.
I implore the Minister to remember what no other Minister occupying that office has ever tried to remember, that he is not merely the Minister of Labour, that certainly he is not a Minister of Unemployment, but that he is the Minister of Labour and National Service. I hope he does not think that when the war is over there will be millions of people to be paid out of the reserves of the Unemployment Insurance Fund built up in these days. All that has gone, and it will be the task of the community, once we get out of the difficulties in which we find ourselves, to build up some kind of system which will not allow the ravages of war to remain unrepaired or the labours of our returning people to remain unused. We may not get an ideal society, but I hope that it will be one that is better than we have ever known, and I hope that the faults in our economic and social organisation which have produced poverty and unemployment, which poverty and unemployment were the prime causes of the present tragic situation of the world, will never be allowed to return.
My final word is to congratulate the Minister on his election to this House. I share the view of others in wishing that he could have come here earlier. It might be said that it took a world war to bring him here, but I hope and believe that he will be able to approach these new problems in a broader and wider spirit. I believe that if there is anyone in the movement with which he and I are associated who is capable of taking that wider view, it is the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will do it.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I did not have the opportunity of hearing the Minister make his maiden speech, because I was an interested listener at a meeting in another part of the building which was discussing the question of the removal of the men of Munich. I am reminded that


in the earlier days of the war the then Prime Minister informed us that when the war was over we were to have a new world, and the then Leader of the Labour party, now the Lord Privy Seal, asked him to give us some details of that new world. The then Prime Minister was unable to provide us with any details, but now we are having them from the Minister of Labour. There was a time, many years ago, when I liked to hear the Minister of Labour, but that is quite a long time ago. I cannot say so much for recent years; it is quite possible that there was a time when the Minister of Labour liked to hear me, but he certainly does not care to do so in these days.

Mr. Bevin: The hon. Member is just as amusing.

Mr. Gallacher: That was not the sort of cynical remark I might have heard 25 or 30 years ago; but changes have taken place. The Minister of Labour is now giving us an idea of the new world. He says we shall have mass unemployment, and, according to him, the operation of the means test. I ask him in all seriousness whether he believes for one moment that the working classes of this country will tolerate these things when this affair is over—on the one hand, big landowners and millionaire bankers and industrialists, and, on the other, mass unemployment. Is that the new world? I tell the Minister he is making a mistake in moving this Bill. The proposals were obviously prepared before he came along. How is it possible for the present Minister to contemplate the continuance of the old system when the war is over? At the last election there was scarcely a representative on the Government benches who did not repudiate the family means test, although they were in favour of a personal means test. Not a single supporter of the Government could be found to support it, and yet the Minister, with all his past record, comes here with a Bill, and the means test operates and will operate when the war is over. I tell him it will not work out that way. There will be something very much more different, and the Minister had better think that over.

6.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): There has been so much support for this Bill that there is really no need for a

winding-up speech, and I do not propose to do more than answer one or two of the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) welcomed the Bill, and, as has every other speaker, welcomed also my right hon. Friend to the Front Bench. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I wish to thank them all for the kind words they have said about him. The hon. Member went on to ask one or two questions, one of which was whether the Regulations which were to be laid would be debated. The position with all Regulations made under the Emergency Powers Act is that they are laid, and if it is desired to debate them, a Prayer has to be made. I was also asked whether in the case of an agricultural worker it was possible to consider removing the ceiling, that is to say, the maximum amount of benefit which could be received, which under the new Bill is 38s., as against 35s. under the old Act. My right hon. Friend has considered that matter, and, although he does not make any promise at the present time, he will see whether it can be done. He will perhaps say something about it at a later stage on the Bill. Almost all Members who have spoken have welcomed the inclusion of the black-coated worker, although, as many Members have pointed out, he no longer wears a black coat. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) asked why the figure had been fixed at £420. The only answer to that question is that the Minister had very much in mind bringing the amount up to a level to include the worker receiving £8 a week.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) complained that there had been a great delay in bringing about this reform, and said it was one of the most pestilential pieces of Parliamentary procrastination. If I may also reply with an alliteration, I hope that "Bevin's Better Benefit Bill" will satisfy him. I was very glad to hear what the hon. Member said about the Employment Exchanges. In past years there has been a certain amount of misapprehension on the part of the public, and a large number of what might be called black-coated workers, have for one reason or another thought it better not to go to the Exchanges. To-day it is more generally known that the Employment Exchanges do a most splendid service, and I hope there will be no more feeling in the


country that there is anything at all to be deprecated in having to go to them. The fact that registration for military service has been carried out through the Employment Exchanges has, I think, been a very good thing. It has brought some people into contact with the machinery of the Ministry of Labour, and, I hope, they will continue to maintain contact with them. The hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) spoke of the lack of a coordinated survey of social services, and some hon. Members have expected my right hon. Friend to do more than, indeed, is possible in such a short time.
The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) was one of those who said it was a great thing to accomplish small things, because he had found from his experience that these added up to a large amount. I feel sure the House will recognise that the Minister of Labour could not possibly have brought in a general Measure dealing with the Unemployment Acts in the short time he has been in office. He has brought some very valuable new Measures into this short Bill, and there is every reason to suppose that this is not his last word on the question of unemployment insurance. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) hoped the Minister would revolutionise the Ministry of Labour. He has done so already, so there is no need to discuss that any further. He also complained of the increased contributions under this new Bill in spite of the fact that there was a large surplus in the Fund. I am quite ready to discuss the financial aspects of this matter with the hon. Member at some future date, although I must put it on record that the Fund is still in debt. He complained that the amount of benefit was inadequate, but he overlooked the fact that it has never been laid down that the amount of benefit under the Act was sufficient to keep a contributor in every circumstance. The House knows that supplementary benefit is available from the Unemployment Assistance Board where needed. The hon. Member for Gorbals made a good many points, and it is not possible to answer them all now. He did say that he hoped for success with the new Minister because he had never had any success with the others. I can only assure him that he has had more success than any other Member of the House. He asked about the question of

the emergency legislation, and how it was that the number of days' benefit was reduced. This is a difficult matter, and I should like to explain it briefly to the House.
Before the war, under the general scheme, a man had 156 days of benefit if he had 30 stamps in the last two years, and if a man had a good employment record, the benefit might go up to as many as 312 days. During the war the 30 stamps gives 180 days' benefit, and a good record does not extend the period. I agree that there is a small minority of persons who have lost, but there is a great majority who have gained 24 days. The rule was changed because Kew had to be closed when war broke out. It was only through the records at Kew that it was possible to work that system, but if the hon. Member for Gorbals has any suggestions to remedy this state of affairs, no doubt he will write to me on the subject.

Mr. Buchanan: Can the hon. Member say something about the waiting period?

Mr. Assheton: That is one of those matters which the Minister has not dealt with in this Bill. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend's views on this matter are the same as those of the hon. Member for Gorbals, but again I would make it clear that this Bill does not represent the Minister's final view. The great many changes hon. Members have proposed would have necessitated considerable delay, because in many cases it would have been necessary to consult the Statutory Committee. The Minister was anxious to make certain changes which he thought of importance, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) spoke of dependency benefit rules, as did the hon. Member for Gorbals. That is a matter which the Minister is considering at the present time, and it is a matter about which he knows a great deal. He also made it quite clear in his opening statement that he would prefer one comprehensive scheme, and hon. Members who have suggested that it would be possible to bring in a comprehensive scheme in this Bill, certainly do not know the difficulties. I am sure that that is not a thing that can be done without a tremendous amount of consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) wanted to have the question of Unemployment Insurance


taken out of politics. As long as the Government are paying one-third of the cost, I do not see how that is possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) raised a point on behalf of the local authorities. I cannot give a definite answer to it now, and my right hon. Friend will look into it. The general view of the Ministry of Labour is that there should be fewer exceptions rather than more, and my right hon. Friend will examine it with that point clearly in mind. There will be opportunities on the Committee stage of raising other points with which I have not dealt. I feel sure the House will agree that to bring in a Measure of this sort at this time shows great confidence in the future. The very fact that many millions of people throughout the country are putting by extra pennies every week to be spent after the war is a sign that we shall get back to better times one day. We say, and I hope the House will recognise, that this is a Measure, not a big one but nevertheless one of importance, which will not only add to the security of the large class of black-coated workers who are brought into the scope of unemployment insurance for the first time, but will provide additional benefits to those already in the scheme.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Boulton.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance (hereafter in this Resolution referred to as 'the new Act') it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys by virtue of Sections twenty-one, ninety-four and ninety-five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, as amended by any subsequent enactment, order or regulation (hereafter in this Resolution referred to as 'the principal Act')

which is attributable to the passing of the provisions of the new Act increasing the rates of contributions and amending Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act;
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys by virtue of section ninety-six of the principal Act which is attributable to the passing of the provisions of the new Act increasing the rates of benefit and amending Section thirty-five of the principal Act;
(c) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys by virtue of Section forty-seven of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934 (as amended as aforesaid) which is attributable to the passing of the provisions of the new Act amending Section thirty-six of that Act as so amended."—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Boulton.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TRUCK BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill comes before the House in pursuance of an undertaking given by the Home Secretary on 18th April last. Its terms have been the subject of discussion with representatives of the Trades Union Congress, who are satisfied that the course proposed by the Government is the right way, and they have given their blessing to the Bill. The origin of the Bill is the judgment of the House of Lords delivered last February in the case of Pratt versus Cook. This judgment reversed a majority judgment of the Court of Appeal and gave to the Truck Act, 1831, an interpretation which it had not previously been construed to bear and a construction which constitutes a source of embarrassment both to employers and employed and involves a risk of serious injury to good industrial relations. In introducing this Bill the Government must not be taken to be criticising in any way the judgment of the highest Court in the land. They only seek to deal with the practical consequences which ensue from that judgment. The case of Pratt versus Cook did not originate in any dispute between employers and employed in regard to terms of employment. Those terms had, in fact, been agreed upon between representatives of both parties and had been embodied in a written agreement. There was no dispute about


the fact that those terms had been faithfully observed by both parties. The real source of the dispute lay in a struggle for trade union recognition which had resulted in the dismissal of Mr. Pratt.
The Truck Acts have a long history as part of our industrial legislation. The idea underlying them is familiar to us all. They were passed in order to prevent certain grave abuses which sprang up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and their main purpose was to provide that the worker obtained the full benefit of the remuneration to which he was entitled and was not deprived of part of it either through payment in kind or an obligation placed upon him to purchase necessaries of life and other goods through shops owned or controlled by his employer. While the basic idea is simple, the Acts themselves are complicated. In some particulars they are as obscure as the origin of the word "truck" itself. There is, in fact, still a nice number of questions, or, rather, a number of nice questions in relation to the interpretation of the Truck Acts waiting to be resolved at the instance of a keen and aspiring litigant.
Perhaps the House will bear with me if I endeavour to explain the position in the case of Pratt versus Cook. The main provision in the Act of 1831 is to be found in Section 3, which provides that the entire amount of the wages earned must be actually paid to the workman in the current coin of the realm, and that every payment made to him by the delivering of goods shall be declared illegal, null and void. Section 4 provides that the workman may recover from his employer so much of the wages earned by him as shall not have been actually paid in current coin of the realm. For the purpose of these two Sections wages are defined by Section 25 to include payments made in kind. The effect of Section 4, therefore, is that a workman may have accepted payment in kind, but may thereafter sue his employer for the value of the goods supplied and recover such value in cash.
So great was the mischief aimed at by the Act of 1831 that, in order to deter employers from the abuses of the truck system, the Legislature provided, as a remedy in the hands of the workmen, one of those rare cases in which one may both eat one's cake and have it. Section 23

provides for certain exceptions to the generality of the law laid down in Sections 3 and 4. It provides that nothing contained in the Act shall be construed to prevent an employer from supplying medicine or medical attendance, provender for the workmen's horse, or fuel and, in the case of miners, materials and tools to be used by the workmen. The Section also covers the letting of a house to a workman at a rent to be reserved and also the supply of victuals, that is to say, meals, dressed or prepared under the roof of the employer and there consumed by the workman. This Section goes on to provide that nothing contained in the Act shall prevent an employer from making a stoppage or deduction from the wages of a workman in respect of the goods or services previously enumerated, provided always that such stoppage or deduction shall not be made unless the agreement permitting it is in writing and signed by the workman.
The question decided by the House of Lords was as to the proper construction of Section 23, where goods or services of the kind mentioned in the Section were supplied by way of addition to and not by way of deduction from a money wage. The difficult nature of this question will be appreciated when it is realised that the Court of Appeal decided the issue by a majority in one sense and the House of Lords by a majority in the opposite sense. We are here today concerned only with the practical effects of the judgment, and these may be briefly stated as follow: It is perfectly legal for an employer to contract with a workman in a written agreement for the payment of a wage, say, of 63s. a week and for a deduction from that wage of 10s. a week in respect of meals provided. It is, however, illegal and a breach of the Truck Acts for an employer to agree with his workmen for a wage of 53s. plus meals to the value of 10s. The effect of these two forms of agreement on the workmen is precisely the same. In Pratt's case the agreement had been made in the form now held by the House of Lords to have been illegal, and the fortunate and persistent Mr. Pratt found himself entitled to a sum of nearly 400, being the value of the meals he had consumed, at his employers' expense and for his own convenience, over the last 20 years.
It is generally recognised that great mischief may ensue as the result of this decision. There are undoubtedly many spheres of employment where the past form of the contract between employer and workman may be invalid and the employer may be made liable to pay the value, over a period up to 20 years, of goods which, as part of the bargain, he has supplied to the workman. For example, I have heard of the case of an employé of a voluntary hospital employed to look after the boilers, and this man has been employed, to his own satisfaction and that of his employers, for a great many years. He has had his meals on the premises. As the result of the decision of the House of Lords, he has a claim against the hospital amounting to something between £600 and £700. Although for the most part, obviously, workpeople would not wish to proceed with claims of this kind against their employers, circumstances may arise in which such claims would be brought forward. A workman, for instance, who had got heavily into debt, or who had met with some exceptional misfortune, might at any moment be advised by his creditors that he had this claim against his employers, and in this way harmonious industrial relations, built up by good will on both sides over a long period, may be seriously prejudiced. Both the Government and representatives of the Trades Union Congress are, therefore, agreed as to the danger of leaving this form of dynamite in the hands of individuals.
The Bill does not attempt to deal with the general system of Truck Act legislation, nor does it seek to reverse the decision of the House of Lords. For the future, employers and workmen will have to follow the form which the House of Lords has shown to be legal. The Bill, however, deals with actions which have arisen, or may arise, out of the mistaken construction generally given to Section 23 hitherto.

Major Milner: Was it not the Home Office who were responsible for the mistaken construction?

Mr. Peake: It is true that the Home Office among other people had given a faulty interpretation of Section 23.

Major Milner: For 50 years.

Mr. Peake: Not 50, but 44 years. The Bill provides, therefore, that no action under Section 4, nor proceedings for a penalty under Section 9, of the 1831 Act can be instituted as the result of past arrangements for the supply of goods or services mentioned in Section 23 where a proper form of agreement might have been made between the parties, and any actions or proceedings now pending will be discharged on such terms as to costs as the court may think fit. It is obviously desirable, in my view, to give the court that discretion. A court of law—I shall be corrected by my right hon. and learned Friend if I am wrong—has at the end of judicial proceedings in the ordinary way a discretion as to costs, and all we are here doing is to provide that the same discretion which exists at the conclusion of proceedings may be exercised in the middle of proceedings which are stayed or discharged as a result of this Bill. I think that is clearly the right course to take, because some of the actions which are now pending have been instituted before the Home Secretary's declaration on 18th April, and it may be considered that they should receive their costs in full, either up to that date or possibly a later date. On the other hand, where an action has been instituted after the warning given by the Government that legislation of this sort was in contemplation, it might be held that the plaintiffs should to some extent be deprived of costs incurred in those circumstances.
Subsection 1(2) is a saving Clause for the benefit of the worker. It is feared that a situation might arise in which, if a contract of employment is null and void under the Truck Acts, that might vitiate the contract of employment for other purposes, such as the payment of contributions under the Contributory Pensions Acts. It would obviously be most unfortunate if a workman were to be deprived of his right to an old age pension because his contract of employment were held to be null and void for Truck Act purposes. The Sub-section therefore provides that if a contract of employment is illegal for purposes of the Truck Act it shall not be held to be illegal for other purposes as well.
Clause 2 makes it clear that the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to


legislate in this matter if it so desires. That Clause is inserted in order to remove some doubt which might arise as the result of Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act, which prohibits the Parliament of Northern Ireland passing any legislation which in effect takes away anybody's property. I hope the House will be satisfied with the explanation of the Bill I have given; and in view of the fact that the passage of the Measure is a matter of great urgency and that the Bill has been in the hands of Members for about a fortnight, I trust that they will allow it to pass through all its stages without undue delay.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I am interested in this Bill by reason of the fact that it was a member of my union who brought the action which was finally settled in the House of Lords. The Minister has given one aspect of Pratt's position. It is quite true that he ate the food and got money for it as well, but he never wanted the food; he wanted the money.

Mr. Peake: But he ate the food.

Mr. Leslie: The rest of the staff also wanted the money. The firm at first refused to discuss it with the union which attempted to negotiate on their behalf. This man Pratt was the chief shop steward in the firm and was responsible for a petition to the firm asking that the supply of food should be discontinued and that the staff should receive the 10s. deducted in respect of meals. The firm were not satisfied about the petition and suggested that a ballot of the staff should be taken. A ballot was taken, and was even more successful than the petition, because by a huge majority the men showed that they would prefer the 10s. to the food which was being supplied. Unfortunately Mr. Pratt, who had been with the firm for 35 years and was recognised as a very efficient worker, was dismissed by the firm. He subsequently brought his action and we know the result. Other members of the staff were involved. They were locked out for declining to agree to the deduction, although the firm themselves had decided that a ballot should be taken and the staff had shown that they wanted the money instead of the food. After the decision in the House of Lords writs were issued on behalf of these other individuals, but I am pleased to inform the House that as a result of nego-

tiations undertaken by the Trades Union Congress the firm agreed to compensate these men and the writs have now been withdrawn. We have received a cheque for the agreed amount and they have paid the solicitors' costs; so that is all right so far as the union and the firm are concerned.
As I understand it, the decision of the House of Lords makes it clear that the workers must be paid in the current coin of the realm before deductions can be made for supplies in kind. For a very long period distributive workers were outside the provisions of the Truck Act. In the early history of the distributive trades the shopkeeper acted as a guardian to his apprentices, who lived in his house and ate at his table; but with the growth of huge company concerns the old personal relationship died out and the living-in system had little or no merit to warrant its continuance. Assistants had no voice either in the quality or quantity of the food supplied, and naturally they often preferred to have the money to spend as they liked instead of being supplied with food for which they did not care. In many cases they were forced to spend money on buying other food. I remember a classic case which occurred in a Yorkshire town when I was organiser to my union. A very large employer there with a drapery establishment also had a farm. Some of his sheep had died of dropsy, and the carcasses were brought into the town, and the assistants were fed on the meat. The premises were raided, and the employer was brought before the local court and fined £5 by the stipendiary; but he appealed and—would you believe it?—he got off, on the plea that the food was not being exposed for sale. I suppose it did not matter whether the assistants were poisoned or not; the legal point was in his favour.
It was not until 1896 that the Truck Act was extended to shops. That was 65 years after the Truck Act was originally passed. When it was extended to shops it resulted in a dimunition in the number of fines imposed on the workers under a system which could only be described as bare-faced robbery of the assistants' earnings. For instance, there was a fine of 5s. for losing a duplicate costing 3d.; 2s. 6d. for losing a sale to a customer; 1s. for not calling the attention of the shop-walker; 2s. 6d. for smoking in the bedroom; and 2s. 6d. for sleeping out with-


out permission. It is good to know that most of the abuses of the living-in system have died out. The last war did a great deal to kill the system by reason of the difficulties accompanying food rationing, and I am hoping that rationing in the present war may sound the death knell of a system which has very little to recommend it. Strangely enough, it is a system which is almost entirely confined to England. It does not exist across the Border, or in the British Dominions, or in the United States, and why should it exist here? It is a relic of the feudal system and ought to be abandoned. I hope that the decision of the House of Lords in the Pratt case will be an object lesson to employers and that they will abandon a system which has very little merit in it and leave the workers free to spend their earnings how and where they like.

7.29 p.m.

Sir George Broadbridge: I welcome this Bill, and I do so because there are so many firms in the City of London who have been adversely affected by what is known as the House of Lords decision. It is also well known that that decision was of a purely technical character. But be it technical or not, it brought about an impossible position between employers and workers. There has been no merit in the men's claim. Even the appellant Pratt, in the House of Lords case, admitted that he had had value for money. Again, up to 1929 there existed an agreement with regard to this system between the Wholesale Textile Association and the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants. In 1937, the Home Office issued a Memorandum upon the Truck Act. There is no doubt from that Memorandum that it had become an accepted fact that this system, which the House of Lords has now said no longer exists, was taken as an ordinary and common rule.
The best thing that one can do in regard to the position which has arisen is to wish the Bill every success. I thank my hon. Friend for introducing it and, if I may say so, for the extraordinarily lucid way in which he did so. I hope that it will find its way at no distant date on to the Statute Book and that, in future, it will enable the relationship between employers and workers to be carried on

in the most cordial manner, as I am certain will be the case.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: I wish to raise my protest against the Second Reading of the Bill. I listened with very great care and attention to the Under-Secretary of State, and I noticed that he drew some very lurid pictures of the unfortunate employer or employers who might be mulcted by unscrupulous workmen who had eaten food that they did not desire to eat, and hospital attendants who were in the position of being able to claim £600 against their employers. That is all very nice, but one must not forget that there is another side to the picture. The Bill does not seek to amend the Truck Act of 1831. Apparently, the Act is quite satisfactory. Therefore, one has to inquire what is to happen to the bona fide claims that may come forward. What is to happen to the people, who must be present in the 16,000,000 or 17,000,000 of the industrial insured workers in this country, where they have a right of action vested in them now, which the Bill will destroy? It is quite true that the Bill will give another right of action, but it will be a limited one which will permit them to go back only to the date when the Bill becomes an Act. I want to know what provision has been made for the bona fide claimant, the person for whom the Truck Act of 1831 has been in operation for all these years, and whose position that Act was designed to safeguard. As I read the Bill, there is no provision for that person at all.
The Bill virtually amounts to an amendment of the Statute. I have heard it described as a mere technicality. Even the Pratt and Cook case was said to be a mere technicality. If the contract had been the other way about, this issue, it is said, would not have arisen at all. I do not think that is a fair description of that case. Even if the contract had been switched about, it would still have been necessary for the contract to have been in writing and signed by the worker, if I have understood correctly the judgment in this case. If it is a mere technicality I am rather surprised to see the following words in the principal Clause, which is Clause 1(1):
Where before the commencement of this Act the whole or any part of the consideration for the hiring of a worker or for the performance of any labour by a worker was the


supply or a contract for the supply of any thing or the demise of any premises in respect of which a stoppage or deduction from the wages of the worker might lawfully have been made under Section twenty-three of the Truck Act, 1831, if an agreement therefor had been made in writing and signed by him.
If this is a mere technicality, why insert the words,
in writing and signed by him"?
I suggest that the reason why those words are not taken out is that they go to the root of the principle of Sections 1 and 23 of the Act of 1831. It is not a technicality. It is an important provision, and that provision still remains. No provision is made to safeguard the bona fide workman—not the blackmailer, because he desires to have the money as well—whom the Act was designed to protect, so far as I understand the Bill. Therefore I register my protest at the Second Reading of the Bill.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Mander: As one who is very much interested in industrial relations, I should like to give my support to the Second Reading of the Bill. I am very glad that, as a result of the decision of the House of Lords, part of what remains of the old system has been done away with. There is no doubt that, in the days when the Act was first brought forward, the workers were in a state of industrial slavery. They were chained to their employers in ways that were most unfair, but the position has been altered by subsequent legislation. There is still a good way to go. By trade union action, and by legislation such as I cannot refer to now, except in passing, we shall, in time, give the workers a charter of freedom which will enable them to hold their own in all respects, as regards their employers, and give them the right to be consulted and play their part to the full, in industrial matters.
I should be interested if the Minister would make one matter clear. I have no information as to how many Mr. Pratts there were altogether, and how many persons were involved and took proceedings. Were they all associated with this particular firm? From the account given by my hon. Friend just now, it would appear that this is a case of deliberate persecution and victimisation by a firm, and that it was wholly indefensible and reprehensible. As a result

of the action taken by the trade union in supporting this man, justice has been obtained in the end. I should be interested to hear whether there are any other cases beyond those which have been referred to, where compensation has now been paid. I warmly welcome the Bill, because it takes us one little step towards the complete emancipation of the workers of this country.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I cannot help feeling some surprise that the Home Office, in the midst of the present situation, has been able to find time to introduce a Measure, which, as far as I can understand it, is intended, almost entirely, to relieve one firm in the City of London. I doubt very much with all respect to them, whether the Government would have found equal time, if a body of workers had been affected in a similar way. I can well understand my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) not opposing the Bill because, apparently, he has obtained on behalf of his members all the benefits which they might have obtained if they had instituted proceedings and successfully brought those proceedings to an issue.
I can also understand the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) supporting this Bill, but I agree very largely with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that this Bill goes too far. Nobody wishes to support the person who has eaten his cake and who then wants to have it, but the Bill goes very much beyond dealing with that position. There are cases of people who have not eaten their cake. The Under-Secretary assumes that all the workers have consumed the food which was available for them, but there are cases where the food was so bad that it was quite uneatable, and the Truck Act makes no provision for that. I can assure the hon. Member that there are cases of men who have not eaten their food at all. There are cases where men have had to pay 10s. a week when their wages were quite incommensurate with a reduction of 10s. a week considering the food which was available for them. There was a case of a man getting 42s. 6d. a week. That man would never have spent 10s. a week on the few meals which were available to him. It was quite disproportionate to his earnings.
I submit that in cases such as that, the 10s. a week was really deducted as a form of duress. Many of the workers had no alternative but to accept the situation, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has told the House, it was done under pressure and quite unwillingly. It is absurd to suggest that in a good many of these cases the arrangement was the result of a bargain freely entered into between the worker and the employer, the worker having complete freedom of choice in the matter. I suggest that in a large number of cases the worker had no choice at all. It was a case of taking the job on the terms which were offered to him, or not at all, and subsequently it was a case of accepting those conditions or going out of work entirely.
It is wrong to suggest that the merits are entirely on one side. The hon. Member for Sedgefield, I think, has made it quite clear to the House that in the case of Pratt there are merits on his side. There are other cases, which have not yet come before the courts and are not covered by the agreement which has been made, in which there are equal merits. I feel, therefore, that this Bill is going beyond what is proper and is penalising people who have some merits and who are entitled to receive some compensation. In the case which my hon. Friend mentioned men received, on an average, £400 each, together with their costs. There are other cases not referred to by him where the merits are at least as good. On the other hand, I recognise that the cases to which I have referred form, perhaps, a minority, and for that reason and in view of the critical situation I do not propose to oppose the Bill.
There was, however, one point which I wanted to make and which I hope the Under-Secretary will consider seriously. In Clause 1 of the Bill there is a reference to costs. A number of workers have instituted proceedings in consequence of the decision of the House of Lords. As the Under-Secretary has stated, it is the highest court in the country and makes law. As a result of the decision of the House of Lords a number of men considered, I think rightly, that they were legally entitled to recover this money and they instituted proceedings. Although the House may, on public grounds, frown on such proceedings and wish to bring them

to a close, these men were within their legal rights in instituting these proceedings and there ought to be no doubt whatever that they will get their legal costs. The wording of Clause 1 certainly leaves it in considerable doubt, because it says:
… subject to such order as to costs as the court or a judge thereof may think fit to make.
I think it should be made quite clear that in a proper case, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, a plaintiff should get those costs, and I therefore propose at the proper time to put in a manuscript Amendment, which is the only form of Amendment now open to me, to put this point right. There may be cases in which a person is not entitled to his costs, but I think from the statement of the Under-Secretary that it is his intention that a person who has properly brought proceedings should get his costs up to the time when he is not permitted to proceed with his action. I, therefore, hope that the Under-Secretary will accept this Amendment when I move it at the proper time, and will make it clear that a plaintiff is entitled to his costs up to the date on which the Measure becomes law, unless there are, in the opinion of the judge, very good reasons to the contrary.

7.47 p.m.

Major Milner: The Under-Secretary, with his usual competent and charming manner, put a picture before us of the insignificant effect which this Bill would really have, but I was sorry that he did not say that the Home Office had a very great responsibility in this matter and that the object of the Bill was just as much to whitewash the Home Office as to right the difficulties which have arisen from the decision in the House of Lords. For over 40 years the Home Office, who claim omnipotence in so many of our public affairs today, have erroneously misled the commercial community of the country in this particular matter—

Mr. Peake: May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member? I hope he will acquit me personally of any responsibility for the drafting of the Home Office Circular which was drawn up in 1896.

Major Milner: Certainly. I do not, however, know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Government when the


circular was re-issued in 1937. If he was, I cannot acquit him of responsibility, but in any event he is here as the representative of the Home Office to-day and it should be made clear that the Home Office is not always as omnipotent, or as accurate in its judgment as it professes to be. I think the Home Office bear a good deal of responsibility for the tangle which this matter has reached, resulting in the necessity, as the Government think, for the introduction of this Bill, and that fact should be made clear.
There are one or two other matters which have not been made clear to the House. In the first place, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what is the origin of this Measure. I am aware of the decision of the House of Lords, but am I to understand that the Home Office of its own volition brings forward this Bill in order to deprive, as in fact it does, those who have acquired rights, bona fide or otherwise, or is it that some pressure from some quarter has been brought to bear upon the Home Office to introduce it? I do not know the answer to that question. In these strenuous times, when we are in the midst of the greatest war this country, or possibly any other country, has ever fought, how does it come about that a Bill of this sort, dealing with what is really a small matter—at any rate, if it is a serious matter more note should have been taken of it than has been taken—is introduced, and at whose instance?
The second matter on which I should like information is as to the number of cases which are now before the courts or of which the Home Office has knowledge. It is true that there have been only three cases, and that those have been bona fide cases, where people's rights have been interfered with. But if there are a great number of other cases before the courts or of which the Home Office have knowledge, the House ought to be told. I hold no brief for claims in which, so to speak, there are no merits. I am not referring to the House of Lords cases, but if there be cases in which a man has willingly acquiesced in the receipt of meals or anything else over a period of years, and he now seeks to take advantage of the decision of the House of Lords to obtain money for them, there are no merits in such cases, and it would be entirely proper to pass legislation to prevent such an advantage being taken of the House of Lords decision. But we must be clear as

to the number of people who may be concerned and the extent to which this Bill would affect individuals.
I understand that the Trades Union Congress have had the opportunity of looking through this Bill. They are, in my view, the best judges of the desirability of passing it, or otherwise. I understand that the Bill applies only to a very limited class of cases, that henceforth the Truck Acts will remain in full force, and that the real intention of the Government is to ensure that in cases which are not bona fide, in the sense in which my hon. Friend used the term, there shall be no claim up to date, but that in all cases in future the Truck Acts shall have application. In that case, I do not propose to offer objection to the Second Reading, provided that we have full information on the questions that I have asked.
I am in favour, however, of the Amendment which I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is to move in Committee, to provide that the Bill should not be left, as at present drawn, so that the costs may go as the judge thinks fit, but that if the workman has presented his case properly and has not succeeded in his claim, he shall be entitled to his costs. I was sorry to hear the Under-Secretary say—and this is a matter on which he must bear responsibility—that in the normal course the judge exercises discretion as to the costs. He was not corrected by his right hon. and learned Friend. I have always understood that, in the normal case, the costs follow the event, and that it is only for exceptional reasons that the court may deprive the successful party of his costs. Where, by reason of this Measure, someone is to be deprived of a right that he has hitherto enjoyed, he should be entitled to his costs as a matter of course. If my hon. Friend moves his Amendment I shall certainly support it; but, subject to satisfactory answers to the questions I have asked, I do not propose to offer any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The discussion this evening is an echo from the days before trade unionism, the period of the industrial history of this country when the worker was, almost body and soul, in the possession of the employer. When proposals are brought forward to


amend the Truck Acts every trade unionist rises to his feet to defend the workers. It is our business to see that no change is made which weakens in any sense or to any degree the real protection which the worker has in the Truck Acts. We are deeply concerned to maintain that protection, and we approach this Bill from that standpoint. The first thing we are concerned to secure is that there shall be nothing in the Measure which in any way weakens the general protection which the Truck Acts give to the workers of this country. We understand that this Bill is brought because of an action in the House of Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie), who is a member of the trade union responsible for bringing that action, has said that this system ought to be brought to an end. I hope that this discussion will bring to the notice of the employers of the City of London and elsewhere the fact that the workmen of this country are citizens with full rights, and that the days of savagery are over.
As I understand, it was discovered in the courts that, in all these cases, the way in which the agreement had been made constituted a technical breach of the Truck Acts. I understand that the agreement was that those workmen and others were to be paid 53s. "in coin of the realm," to use the words of the Truck Acts, and, that in addition, they were to have food, consumed on the employer's premises, which was jointly agreed to represent 10s. a week. I understand that that was discovered to be illegal, and therefore, not binding. On the other hand, if the agreement had been for the payment of £3 3s. a week, and, by agreement in writing, 10s. a week had been deducted for food, that, I understand, would have been legal. I and others, in making agreements of this kind, have accepted the common interpretation of the Truck Acts, an interpretation which the Home Office themselves have issued for the guidance of employers and workers. There is, in consequence, a large number of bona fide agreements between employers and workers on the commonly-accepted interpretation.
By this decision in the House of Lords, those agreements become null and void, because they are illegal. In the industry with which I am most familiar, there are

agreements in every pit, in every district, and in all the coalfields of the country, as the Under-Secretary, who used to be connected with the industry, knows. Some element of payment in kind has always entered into our agreements. For example, part of the payment of the miner, by signed agreement, is the right to receive either free or cheap coal for his own domestic purposes, and in fixing and settling the wage structure of the industry we have had regard to the fact that there is this old-established custom, going back to the very early days of mining. In addition to that, in some of the districts, there is also provision by which the rent of certain cottages is taken into account. We know that these agreements, technically, are null and void by this decision, but there are large numbers of agreements in other trades and industries. The Trades Union Congress has been at some pains to discover the views of the trade unions about this decision. When the proposals of the Home Secretary, now embodied in this Bill, were first announced in this House they were made known to the trade unions of the country whose observations were sought upon them. We are assured by Trades Union Congress representatives that the trade unions of this country have raised no objection to this Bill.
The trade unions have been deeply concerned to find out whether the provisions of the Bill would prevent bona fide claims from being made. I do not claim that the trade unions speak for every workman in this country, but they do speak for the mass of the workmen. We can claim that they speak for the working men in this country who are most alive to their duties and privileges. Without trade unions no workman would have any rights at all; therefore, I think the trade unions can be accepted as speaking for the workers of this country. They have made every effort to find out whether any bona fide claims will be prejudiced by this Bill and they cannot find any. If there were bona fide claims they would become known through the machinery of the trade unions.
It is because the unions believe that, that they have accepted this Measure. We have, generally, in industry made agreements, and there may be thousands of them. An action of this kind takes


place and as a result a decision is given which causes a re-examination of the position. It is possible that some employer at some time may take a case to court and get a decision adversely affecting and seriously prejudicing the workmen, and the trade unions would have to go to the Government and ask them to take the earliest possible opportunity of putting the matter right. I want to get this on record. Cases of that kind may occur. If they do, I hope that the Government of the day, whatever Government it is, will act with the same tact as the present Government. It is on the assurance that that will be done, if such a case crops up, and such a decision is made, that we support the Bill. We have built up and are strengthening—earlier this evening we heard the speech of the Minister of Labour, who has played an important part in building it up—a splendid system of collective agreements and security for the workers of this country, and we are anxious that nothing should be done to disturb that system. We approach the Bill from that standpoint.
We understand that this Bill applies only to those cases where legal agreements could have been made for payment in kind, such as are permissible under the Truck Act, 1831, but were not made either because of misapprehension or misunderstanding. I want to get from the Attorney-General a definite assurance by which our reading of the Bill and that of laymen and trade unions, on that point, is made doubly sure. All that the Bill prevents is retrospective action in such cases as I have indicated, and only in those cases. This decision has shown that we ought to look afresh at the question of the Truck Acts. One hundred and ten years have passed since the first Truck Act was passed. We are living in a new era, a new industrial regime. In 1831 there were no trade unions and none of the present magnificent organisation of the workers of the country. This magnificent organisation is playing its part, and it is part of the bulwark of this country in these days of stress and strain.
I put this point earnestly on behalf of my colleagues and of the trades unions. Surely the time has come when consideration ought to be given to the possibility of passing a consolidating Truck Act, bringing the legislation up to date and relating it to the conditions and in-

dustrial circumstances of our time. Can we have an assurance that in spite of the difficulties of the time, the Government will consider the possibility of bringing forward a consolidating Measure? It may be that the initial steps ought to be consultations with the Trades Union Congress and with the employers. If that is the first step to take, I invite the Government to initiate discussions with the Trades Union Congress to discover whether agreement can be found for the passing of a consolidating Measure. In any case it is very essential that these first steps and other steps should be taken in order that we may bring this important legislative bulwark of the workers up to date and give the protection to the worker in these days which the Truck Act gave in 1831. Subject to assurances on those points, we do not propose to offer any objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. That is on the understanding that the assurance for which I have asked and the interpretation I have put upon this Bill—and it is the interpretation of the trades unions—shall be agreed to by the Attorney-General when he comes to reply. If we get assurances on these points, we shall agree to giving the Bill its Second Reading.

8.10 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) directed some criticism against those responsible for the Home Office in 1898, and not in 1896 as he thought. I think it worth while to say that in that circular it was pointed out that these were only opinions obtained on advice and that only courts of justice could finally decide the meaning of the law. I do not think that Government Departments should be discouraged from giving what help they can in a complicated and legal matter because, 30 or 40 years later, on one small, complex and rather technical point they were wrong. The view taken in the circular was not something which was declared by all judges as plainly to be taken as being wrong; it was the view taken by a majority in the Court of Appeal and by one of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords. It was obviously, therefore, a difficult point. The hon. and gallant Gentleman


the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and, I think, one or two other speakers, asked me how many other cases were affected. To some extent that was answered by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his reference to the coal trade, some of which may be affected by this House of Lords judgment. Our information is that there are many other cases, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) will be interested to know that the London County Council have many cases, of agreements which are probably invalid under the decision in the House of Lords. Other local authorities also are in the same position. I understand that there are agreements agreed to by unions concerned in the textile trade. It is not an isolated case at all.
With regard to the question which the hon. Gentleman opposite put, the Bill does apply only to cases where the substance of the agreement could have been legally obtained if the form of deduction had been adopted, whether you adopt the form of deduction or adopt deduction partly in cash and partly in kind. It is also relevant to say that under Section 23 an agreement is invalid in spite of this Bill if what is deducted is more, in the case of food, than the fair value of the food suplied. Where the food is not eaten because it is unpalatable it may be that more than the fair value was deducted. In answer to the question whether this affects retrospective cases, the answer is "Yes." It may put a certain burden on employers in altering the form of these agreements, but in future everybody must adopt the form which the House of Lords has declared to be the legal form, and the only legal form, on which this result can be obtained. That point will be welcomed by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, because he thinks that if there is a distinction in form, he would prefer the deduction form—

Mr. Mander: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet answered my point about the number of persons involved in these cases.

The Attorney-General: I am told that there are some thousands in the London County Council area and many others in other areas.

Mr. Mander: Who have actually brought actions?

The Attorney-General: I cannot give the number of those who have started actions. I do not think it will be possible to obtain statistics, but I have heard informally that a very considerable number of actions were started before the Home Secretary's statement on 18th April. Obviously, unless this matter was remedied you might have had many actions. In dealing with costs I propose to wait until an Amendment is moved so that I shall not have to say the same thing twice over. Another question put to me was whether the Government were prepared to look at the Truck Act anew and consider a consolidating Measure. I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite agrees that at this time especially it would be impracticable to do that. Everybody, including trade union leaders, has many matters to attend to, and I cannot think that anyone would want at this moment to turn aside from them—

Mr. J. Griffiths: If they do want to do so, are you prepared to reconsider the matter?

The Attorney-General: One has, of course, to consider priority of demands which the war makes on all sides in a matter of this kind, but I can say that note has been, and will be, taken by us and our successors of the importance which the trade union movement attach to the overhaul of this part of our legislation. In happier and easier times, so far as we can bind our successors, I think they would be willing to enter into discussions to see whether agreement could not be arrived at. I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite will not expect me to go further than that tonight, and I hope the House will give the Bill its Second Reading.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Restraint on proceedings under 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 37, and removal of doubts as to effect of illegality of contracts.)

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out from "to," to the end of line 11, and to insert:
the payment to the worker by the employer of the costs of the said action or legal proceeding, unless the Court or a judge shall, for good reason, otherwise determine.
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that in all proper cases workers who have instituted proceedings in good faith on the strength of the decision of the House of Lords shall get the costs which they have incurred up to the time of the passing of this Bill. This can apply only to the type of workers who get their food as part of their wage, and, obviously, they will be workers having very small means. If they have been induced as a result of the decision of the House of Lords to take action to recover what the House of Lords decided are their legal rights, I feel that we ought not to deprive them of the costs which they have incurred in so doing. These people who have very small means ought not to be out of pocket as a result of taking such proceedings.
I recognise that the Clause as it stands gives the court or a judge discretion to award costs if they think fit, but I feel that it ought to be made clear that, unless good reason exists to the contrary, the workers ought to get the costs. After all, the discretion is an absolute one, as the Clause stands, and no direction is given to the court or the judge. They might quite properly think, if they have a clear discretion, that these actions have no merits, that they ought not to have been instituted, and that, therefore, the workers ought not to get their costs. Such a view would be within the discretion of the judge, and although the Under-Secretary of State has declared that in his view the judge ought to allow some costs, that of course does not bind the judge. There may be cases in which the plaintiff ought not to get the costs, and I recognise in the Amendment that in such cases the judge would have the right to say that costs should not be awarded. However, I think it ought to be the normal thing, unless there is good reason to the contrary, that the plaintiff in these cases

should have the costs awarded to him. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to accept the Amendment, or, if he does not think the wording is entirely suitable, that he will be able to accept some form of words which will achieve the purpose I have in mind.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: I beg to support the Amendment. I think that if one of these actions has been started in good faith, and in view of the fact that Parliament is interfering with the normal processes of the law, it is not unreasonable to say that, unless there is some outstanding feature which would justify the judge in awarding no costs, the costs ought to be given to the worker. A point which occurs to me is that if absolute discretion were left to the judge, it would mean that he would need to inquire into the merits of the case, and I cannot see how he could go into the merits of the case unless he had heard many of the facts which normally in these circumstances he would not require to hear. He would not be in a position to judge of the merits of the case unless he had heard a substantial amount of evidence on the basis of which he could form an opinion. Consequently, I feel that, from more points of view than one, this Amendment would assist in getting these cases disposed of.

8.25 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I hope the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) will not press this Amendment. In the first place, clearly the words would not be suitable. Moreover, I think I can reassure the hon. Member as to the general position, and point out cases which make it desirable that there should be this discretion. It is true that the discretion is absolute in this as in all cases, but there is a long-recognised practice, of course, that a successful litigant gets his costs. If one takes a case in which a person started proceedings before the passing of this Bill, and if one assumes that the facts are clear and that he was starting proceedings in the exercise of what had been held to be his legal right, then the situation is that Parliament has stepped in and said that he must not go on. I cannot imagine a case in which, on general principles, according to the ordinary practice, the man would not get his costs as a matter of course. But one has to


provide for the possibility of a case in which the defendant might say that the proceedings under the Truck Act were started under a complete misapprehension, and that the man had performed work that was outside the Truck Act. In that case there would be no conceivable reason why he should get the costs. The proceedings would have failed, quite apart from the intervention of Parliament.

Mr. Silkin: Such a case is met under the terms of the Amendment, which states "unless the court or a judge shall, for good reason, otherwise determine." Obviously, this would be a good reason.

The Attorney-General: My view is that the Amendment would leave the matter where it is at present, because the court will always exercise discretion in any case in which it thinks there is good reason for it to do so. There is another point to which my hon. Friend referred in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. The Home Secretary gave a very clear warning on 13th April that this legislation was to be brought forward. It might be that the court should be entitled to take into account the question whether proceedings that were started after that warning should possibly be in a different position from proceedings that were started before the warning was given. That is another matter, therefore, in which discretion should be left. For the reasons which I have given, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Tinker: After the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Amendment would not fit into the Bill, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) will withdraw the Amendment. As I follow it, the judges will order a court to examine these cases, and if it is a bona fide case brought forward on general grounds, costs will be allowed.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I am in some difficulty. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells me that the words of the Amendment do not fit into the Clause, I must accept his statement. However, I feel that the Amendment in some form or another should find its way into the Bill. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he does not think it would be wise to insert the necessary words in

the Bill to meet this point. That could be done, of course, in another place, and if he will undertake to consider the matter between now and that time, we are quite in agreement to withdraw the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I will certainly turn the matter over in my mind, but I should be quite wrong if I held out any hopes of any particular likelihood of coming to a different conclusion.

Mr. Silkin: It is within my recollection that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said exactly the same thing on another Bill. He said he would turn it over in his mind, although he held out no hope, when in fact at a later stage he came to that different conclusion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (SALVAGE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

8.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a comparatively simple Bill, and its provisions can be explained, I think, quite briefly to the House. The purpose of the Bill is to place the Crown in the same position as the private salvor, that is, to enable the Crown to claim a salvage reward for services rendered by any of His Majesty's ships or any ship under the control of the Admiralty. Until 1916 the Crown was definitely precluded by a Statute enacted in 1853 and now embodied as Section 557 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, from claiming any such reward. But in 1916 this House passed an Act under which the Admiralty was authorised to claim for services rendered provided these services were rendered by vessels specially equipped for salvage work or by tugs, but they were still, under the provisions of that Statute, debarred from raising any claim for services rendered by His


Majesty's ships of other descriptions—by miscellaneous craft, other than those I have mentioned, or by shore parties or plant. The disability the Admiralty suffered at that time was commonly circumvented by entering into voluntary agreements with the representatives of salved property, and thereby the Admiralty was enabled to recoup itself for the expenses of services rendered. But, in 1937, as a result of a case in the courts, it was laid down by the House of Lords that voluntary agreements entered into upon that basis were null and void. The result is that the simple process which would have previously been followed, whereby the law could have been circumvented, was no longer possible.
The need for this Bill is especially great at this time, because, as hon. Members know, the Admiralty has taken over the whole of the salvage industry in this country, and in addition we are requisitioning and have purchased, at considerable cost, salvage equipment and ships to deal with cases of vessels in distress. The result is that if the law is left as it stands the underwriter or the owner may be relieved of a very considerable liability at the expense of the general taxpayer. Although a large number of cases are covered by existing legislation, the House, I think, will agree that it is only right that, with an eye for the urgent need of ships at the present time, the Admiralty should undertake salvage operations which a private salvor would reject as unprofitable, and some reasonable reward should be paid out of the benefit received by the owners of the property salved. Lest the House should fear that this Amendment which we propose should result in extortionate payments being demanded by underwriters or shipowners, let me say, in passing, that, of course, like all other salvage claims where voluntary agreement is not reached, there will be settlement in the courts, and the rights of interested parties are thereby protected. Nor is there any question of the Crown claiming salvage awards for services rendered to ships which are either chartered or have been requisitioned by the Ministry of Shipping or other Departments when the payment of a salvage reward would merely merely mean taking money from one Department and handing it over to another. Although the Government and the Ministry have requisitioned a large tonnage

of shipping, there still remains a large field open to us, and, in particular, there remains the foreign shipping which may or may not be salved.
Perhaps I can best illustrate the anomaly of the present position by quoting an actual case which occurred not so long ago. It so happened that two of His Majesty's trawlers took in tow a ship which had been damaged by enemy action some 40 miles out to sea. At considerable risk to themselves they brought this ship to port. The tug which came out and actually brought the ship to harbour, which the trawlers were unable to do, was able to make a claim for reward, although in point of fact it had been involved in very little risk, whereas the trawlers, which had done 99 per cent. of the work, were unable under the present law to make a claim. The salvage organisation which the Admiralty run has been instrumental in saving a very large amount of tonnage. Since the beginning of the war, nearly 100 vessels of a total tonnage of nearly 500,000 tons have been successfully salvaged. This figure is nearly half the losses inflicted on British tonnage since the beginning of the war. In a number of these cases the Admiralty have been barred from making any claim for salvage reward.
Another aspect of the Bill in which hon. Members may be interested is its effect on the rights of crews in making claims. Under the Bill crews are not prevented from receiving payments in respect of salvage. The rule regarding crews in the permanent service of the Admiralty, which has been followed for many years, is that they must obtain Admiralty permission before they make a claim. This rule is insisted upon and observed in the interest of the crews themselves, and permission is always given where the Admiralty claim. The Admiralty, however, use their discretion in these matters, in order to protect or save the crews from starting on hopeless or unprofitable litigation on their own. The main machinery of the Bill is in Subsection (1) of Clause 1. Hon. Members may, however, wish me to explain the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3), which appear to be a little complicated. The object of these Sub-sections is to remove doubts whether the crew or the owner of a ship is entitled to claim salvage for services rendered by the ship while she is requisitioned. The effect of decisions by the courts recently is that


where the terms of the requisition, by placing the possession and control of the vessel in the Crown are equivalent to a charter by demise, the Crown is entitled to any benefit of any salvage services rendered by the ship. This position has been found to give rise to some difficulty in cases where a ship is requisitioned ad hoc for a particular salvage operation, and the salvage services are rendered before any agreement has been made about terms. These Sub-sections provide that the Crown and not the owner shall be entitled to any salvage reward earned by a requisitioned ship unless an agreement has been made to the contrary.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the rights of crews in cases of requisitioned ships? He has said that in the case of crews of ships in the service of the Admiralty the rights of crews remain, but in the case of the large number of requisitioned ships, is the right of crews to claim salvage intact?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether the crews of His Majesty's ships are safeguarded, and, if so, which of these Clauses covers them?

Sir V. Warrender: Under this Bill we repeal certain Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but the rights of crews, in spite of the alteration in the law, remain intact. This Bill does not alter their rights. In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) the crews of requisitioned ships are not prevented, as I understand it, from making a claim, but where it happens that they are so prevented and the Admiralty make a claim, obviously the Admiralty would apportion the claim to the crews and pay them in the form of a bonus. The Bill also applies to aircraft, but it is doubtful whether any important aircraft operations of this nature are likely to be carried out. Under Clause 3 (2) the Bill will be construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Act and will, therefore, extend to the Dominions and the Colonial Empire. I do not think I can do better that commend this Bill to the House in the words which were used by Lord Wright when judgment was given in the case to which I have referred. Dealing with the law as it stands, precluding us from making

claims except in respect of a limited class of vessel, Lord Wright said:
It is difficult now to see any decisive reason why the general body of taxpayers should pay the expenses of salvage rather than the particular shipowners or underwriters who have benefited by it. The case is even less obvious when the ships salved are foreign or the underwriters are foreign in whole or in part.
I hope that I have convinced the House that this is a gap in the law that should be filled.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The House will not wish to be detained long on this Measure after the clear definition given by the Minister. It rectifies a defect in the law. The hon. Gentleman omitted, however, to deal with a point which should be cleared up. Although the claims for salvage will be dealt with by the Admiralty, there exists a large number of ships, not under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, but under the Board of Trade. Often these participate in salvage operations, and I should like to know whether salvage services rendered by all ships, whether owned by the Admiralty or not, are covered by the Bill.

The Minister of Shipping (Mr. Cross): If the hon. Member is referring to ships requisitioned not by the Admiralty but by the Ministry of Shipping, it depends on the terms of the charter. Under our ordinary charters, the rights remain vested in the owners so that the position remains unaffected.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committeed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power of court to take account of other liabilities.)

8.51 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out "may," and to insert:


shall unless good cause to the contrary is shown.
The object of the Amendment is to carry out the purpose of the Clause as stated.
It is hereby declared for the removal of doubt that on an application for leave to exercise any of the rights or remedies …
I want to remove doubt more than it is removed in the Clause as it stands. In its present form it is left to the discretion of the court as to whether account is taken of other liabilities, and there is therefore no compulsion in the matter as far as the court is concerned. It says:
In determining the restrictions and conditions (if any) subject to which the leave is to be given; may take account of other liabilities.
That does not impose the necessity on the court of taking account of the other liabilities. I should like to state two cases that I have in mind. In one there are several landlords concerned and the tenant is unable to meet the rent which he ought to pay to those several landlords. All but one comes to an agreement with the tenant as to what he shall pay, but one stands out, will not come to any agreement and takes proceedings in the court. He proves to the satisfaction of the court that the tenant can pay him in full. An order is then made out that he shall pay in full. That means that the agreement that has been come to with the other landlords is null and void. It leads inevitably to the loss of the tenant's business, he will have to go into the bankruptcy court, all the money that has been put into the business is lost, and the whole business goes by the board. That seems to me to be a most unfair proceeding. If there was an obligation on the court to take into account all the other liabilities, that would not arise. The other liabilities would have to be taken into account notwithstanding the fact that one landlord has taken proceedings.
I have a case of a widow of an officer who was killed in the last war who is in receipt of a pension of £3 a week. Owing to the war she is unable to meet her rent. She can pay only half. Early this year the landlord pressed for possession. In June he made an application to distrain. The case came before Master Moseley. An affidavit was filed setting forth the full position of the defendant. Master Moseley asked, "Can she pay the contractual rent?" He was told, "No,

only half the rent." He made an order for possession. In regard to the rent in arrear, he gave leave to distrain, but suspended it if the rent was paid at the rate of £5 a month. When exception was taken to this decision, Master Moseley said that, of course, the order could be appealed against. As a matter of fact this unfortunate widow has lost her business, the landlord has taken possession, and she is entirely ruined. What protection is there under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act in that case? There is simply none. The Master exercised his judgment, no doubt, but he could not have taken into account the conditions brought about by the war and given a fair judgment.
It may be argued that there is an analogy between a landlord and a butcher or baker, but there is none at all. The landlords, in their leases for these apartment houses, definitely state that the premises are to be used for that purpose, and they realise perfectly well that they cannot possibly obtain their rent unless the premises are let. It is a business proposition. If they are not let, they cannot obtain the rent agreed to in the lease. Owing to conditions created by the war it is impossible for these people who signed a lease prior to the war, when conditions were quite different, to carry out the obligation on them of meeting this rent. In the case of a butcher or baker it is quite a different thing. You want to buy so much meat, and you agree to take it at a certain price. If the bill is not paid, the butcher has a perfect right to take proceedings. That is a contract of the moment and not one made prior to the war in conditions quite different from those of to-day. There is no parallel whatever there. I should like to mention the case of a man in my constituency who had nine houses. There were several landlords and one landlord had one of a pair of houses. The tenant could not meet the rent which was demanded, owing to the war. One landlord took proceedings in court and the matter came up for hearing before the Registrar at Marylebone County Court, who said:
I know all about the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. I sat and gave decisions in the last war under the Act. It is the same Act. I know how it worked then and I propose doing the same now. No tenant can expect to stay in possession without paying his rent. All I am concerned with is deciding how he can pay. What do you offer?


I ask what protection there is under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act when that is said in court? An offer of £5 a month was made, but the Registrar said that was not enough and made an order for £10. It was explained that it was only current revenue which could pay this rent. He said he was not concerned with that. The landlord's solicitors complained of payment not being made at a greater rate, and that nothing had been gained by waiting until January this year to issue those proceedings, whereupon the Registrar remarked:
You should have issued them earlier. You have only yourselves to blame for waiting. If the rent is due you can issue proceedings.
I repeat, What protection is there under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act when that is what occurs in court? I hope I have made it clear that this Bill requires strengthening. The original Act did not contain sufficient protection for these people. The conditions to-day are entirely different from what they were before the war and therefore greater protection is necessary, and the people are not getting it. There are numerous other cases which I could cite. I claim that to remove doubt it is necessary to insert the Amendment, because that would make it certain that the court "shall" take into account all the other liabilities, and not give an order to one creditor which places him in a privileged position and leaves the other creditors out of account. I hope the Attorney-General will accept this Amendment.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should like to support the plea which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). I suppose that the battle over whether the word is to be "may" or "shall" has gone on for a good many years and taken up a good many hours of debate in this House, and, unfortunately, the Law Officers who have put the word "may" into their Bills nearly always carry the day; but I should like to feel that in response to the representations which have been made to-night, and in view of the knowledge which the learned Attorney-General must have of cases in the courts, he will for once allow us to put "shall" instead of "may." By a curious chance, before I came into the House I was reading in the Library

a book dealing with the law, and a very learned lawyer there committed himself to the assertion that if the Poor Prisoners Defence Act, 1930, had contained the word "shall" instead of "may," so far as the courts of summary jurisdiction are concerned, it would have worked very much better than it has done. I have not the slightest doubt that before it was passed an attempt was made in this House to make it obligatory instead of permissive, and that the learned Attorney-General of the time, with all the eloquence at his command, assured the House that "may" was the correct word and that "shall" ought not to be used; but as a result the law is not as strong as it might be, and many a poor person has lacked the assistance which I am positive the legislature wanted him to have.
It may be supposed that this is a small Measure, and that this Bill is small because it does not cover many pages; but, as the Attorney-General and the Committee know, the original Act was one of the most important which this House passed in the early days of September, 1939. It has been of the utmost value, but it was obvious at the time, because it was passed quickly and with a certain lack of experience, that amendment would be necessary. I beg the Attorney-General to realise that now is a chance which may not occur again for some time and that this small Amendment is not captious or dilatory but one which, in the opinion of the hon. and gallant Member, should be introduced.
I cannot understand why the drafters of the Bill and the Government should go out of their way to put in the Clause, in order that the matter might be better understood and clarified, and then wish to leave it still permissive to the judges to take other liabilities into account, if they wish to do so, and as they can, and do, at present. My contention, which I hope may carry weight, because, in my view, it is logical and beyond dispute, is that, if you put the Clause in at all in order to make the matter absolutely clear to the courts, this Committee should, in common fairness to the courts, the House of Commons, the public and the debtors who will be helped by this Measure, make it obligatory and not permissive.

9.7 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: Under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, the


courts have power to deal with rates. Recently, we passed a Measure to give power to the Metropolitan boroughs such as is enjoyed by provincial boroughs, in relation to rates. The liabilities do not oral there. There is the question of water, gas, electric light, and coal. It seems to me that those were overlooked when we passed, somewhat hurriedly, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. The Lord Chief Justice has called attention to the fact that various authorities are empowered to pass rules and regulations and enforce them. In fact, of course, the Metropolitan Water Board and the electric light and gas companies are laws unto themselves. As regards water, it is obvious that unless you have it, you cannot carry on your business, and the water authorities request and require you to pay for the supply in advance. That is a liability. If you do not pay in advance I believe that the authorities actually have no power to cut off the supply until one quarter has expired.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is anticipating somewhat. There is an Amendment on the Paper in relation to water. We can deal with the question of water when we reach that Amendment.

Sir R. Tasker: I do not want to do more than take the analogy of other liabilities.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not anticipate. That is one of the Rules.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: This proposition only carries out the sentiments which were expressed by the Attorney-General himself on the Second Reading of this Bill, and in the circumstances I hope he will see fit to accept what, in my submission, is a very reasonable proposition. The purpose of this Clause is to remove doubt. What the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member does is to remove all doubt. The Clause needs strengthening so as to remove all possible question of doubt, and that is what the words which are proposed to be inserted will effect. Therefore, I hope the Attorney-General will see fit to accept this Amendment.

9.11 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Whether my right hon. and learned Friend the present

Solicitor-General, when he was the Attorney-General in 1930, adduced the argument against the provision in the Pool Prisoners Defence Act, to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) referred, I cannot say, but I think this Amendment raises quite different issues, and I think it is open to real objection. The first objection, which is not the one to which I attach most importance, although I do attach importance to it, is this: This is a declaratory Clause. I have always taken the view, and I think most of the courts have, that under the original Act they were entitled to, and indeed in all proper cases should, take into account other liabilities. The reason why we brought this Clause forth is because some courts took a different view. I am not sure that any appreciable number do now, but in the early stages of the administration people put forward the argument that you must simply look at the debt and say, "Has the person got enough to pay?" It therefore seemed desirable, that argument having been put forward and in some cases having had weight attached to it, that we should declare that no such blinkers were placed on the courts by the original Act. But undoubtedly the original Act did not compel the courts in any way. It left it a matter of discretion. If you put those words in here, you plainly could not read this Clause as a declaratory Clause, and I think that would be a disadvantage because it then might be thought that there were doubts on the other Clause, and people who have to construe these things would say, "Parliament obviously did not intend that the earlier Clause should entitle you to look at other liabilities, because they passed a separate Clause some months later to enable you to do this." Therefore, I attach importance to retaining the declaratory form. Doubt might be thrown on what had already been done and on cases already impending.
The second point is this: If you put in these words, I think you would create great confusion. It would then read:
The court shall take account of all other liabilities, whether present or future.
There may be cases in which there is no evidence of other liabilities before the court. If you put in these words, you


are telling the court that it should not proceed until it has taken account of all other liabilities, present or future. You are, therefore, putting a duty on them to inquire into all other liabilities, whether present or future.

Mr. Tinker: What do you mean by future?

The Attorney-General: "Future" means accruing, payable in futuro, further instalments under a hire-purchase agreement, and things of that sort. That, I think, would be most unfortunate. I know that it is not what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind. I have considered whether one could have a form of words which would say that they were to take into account liabilities, present or future, if proved before them. I made inquiries about that, but I came to the conclusion that that would be restrictive, rather than effecting what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants. It would suggest that the court could not take into account all liabilities unless they were proved in the ordinary sense. In many cases, in affidavits there may not be strict proof. There may be some general statement as to liabilities. There may be a general impression in the class of case that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind as to the nature of the business and of the sort of liabilities which are liable to accrue. Therefore, there is an advantage in leaving the words vague, and not putting in a mandatory provision which would suggest that the court has to inquire, and can proceed only on the basis of fairly strict proof.
These reasons lead me to advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment. It would alter the declaratory form and compel the court to undertake an obligatory inquiry which nobody wants. I have not succeeded in finding a form of words which, while not going as far as that, might indicate that stricter proof is required. With regard to the individual cases which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to, it is always difficult to deal with individual cases when one has no opportunity of looking into them, but I felt that the real gravamen of his speech was a wider issue than this particular Amendment. He really wants a provision under which, in the case of certain business premises, the rent really can be  down during a period when the war

has taken away the business. That does not really arise on this Amendment, but goes to the general structure and scheme of the Act.

9.18 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Attorney-General said that I wished to have rent cut down. On the contrary, I wish the true position, as it is, to be taken into account. Owners of apartment houses and so on, who depend on the letting of their apartments, have received certain sums of money, which, directly owing to the war, have been cut down, and it is quite impossible for them to meet the rent. It is no use imposing on these people an obligation to pay more than they have got. That merely means that they will have to go out of business, and be put into the bankruptcy court. The rent has to be cut down because of the facts of the case. I want the court to take into consideration what the facts are, and to make an order in conformity with those facts. In the cases I have mentioned that is not being done, and that is very unfair and very wrong. I believe that the Attorney-General is in sympathy with the principle of my Amendment. I believe that he thinks that there should be some further protection for these people. Otherwise, he would not have taken the trouble to endeavour to find some form of words. The whole question is whether the Attorney-General can find a form of words which will carry out in principle what I desire to obtain—greater protection for these people. Although the Attorney-General may have failed up to now, I beg of him to endeavour between now and the Report stage to find some means by which this further protection can be given.

Sir R. Tasker: I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to say that the decision of the court would depend upon the ability to pay, and surely ability to pay covers not only rent but every other obligation? Will not the court take that into consideration in determining the rent?

The Attorney-General: The Act covers all obligations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether I would consider this before the Report stage. We hope to get all stages tonight. We are very anxious to get the Bill, and a great many people are anxious. This is very


unlikely to be the last word on this subject, though I do not think one could find a form of words which would exactly meet the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman under this accountancy Clause. I think it right to tell him that we are anxious, if the House will let us have the Bill to-night, to get this legislation through.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Bill will have to go to another place.

The Attorney-General: It has been there already.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will it not go back?

The Attorney-General: Yes, maybe.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: It may go back to another place, and may not there be another opportunity to insert something in another place to meet this point?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me a question. The Bill will go back to another place if Amendments are made here, but they can make Amendments in another place only to Amendments that we have made, and they cannot insert new Amendments. Therefore, I think his point would not be met.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Minor amendments.)

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, at the end, to add:
(4) In any proceedings which the court considers have been brought unreasonably and where leave to enforce a judgment has been refused, the court shall, and in any other case may, having regard to any offer made by the defendant which has not been accepted, order the plaintiff to pay the whole costs of the proceedings from their commencement, including the defendant's taxed costs and also the costs of the application under the principal Act.
I am at a very serious disadvantage in dealing with a legal problem, and all that I can do is to bring my common sense to bear upon this matter. It may be that common sense is very much more powerful than legal knowledge, and frankly, I have seen that proved more than once. Let me try to state in a few words what my Amendment means. I need hardly say that I did not draft it, but I understand that it has been found

in the administration of the original Act that owners of property are, if anything, a little vindictive in some cases against the debtor, and that where the court finds that the debtor has made a reasonable proposition to pay his debts, it transpires, even in that case, that the debtor has to bear the costs, which, in our view, ought to be borne by the plaintiff himself. It seems strange that when a debtor has proved to the court that he has made a reasonable offer and is carrying it out, that he should also have to bear the costs or part of the costs of the action against him brought by the plaintiff. As I have said, I am not a lawyer, and I do not know that I would ever aspire to be one, but I am sure I have convinced the right hon. and learned Gentleman—who has not listened to a word of what I have said—that the proposition I am making is one for his favourable consideration.

Mr. Tinker: Do I gather from my hon. Friend that the Government will accept this?

Mr. Davies: I should be sorry if they did not.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I thought there was some agreement. However, I want to support the Amendment, because I think there ought to be some provision made whereby a man who takes an unreasonable claim to court ought to pay some penalty. If the court is satisfied that his case ought not to have been brought, and that it is causing a lot of trouble to the defendant, something should be done to stop that kind of thing. This seems a reasonable and fair suggestion, of which the Government should take notice. I do not know what objection will be offered—I see no objection myself—and I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give adequate reasons if he sees fit to oppose it.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I want quite briefly to support what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said tonight and to remind the Attorney-General of what he obviously knows already, that the people most affected by this particular Clause will be a class of people who are in great difficulty because of the war and because their liabilities have outrun their income.


I think he will probably say, when he comes to reply, that again you have to leave a good deal to the discretion of the courts, but I would ask him to accept, for once in a while, this form of words proved by my hon. Friend, and put into the Bill definite instructions to the courts that in the view of this House these costs should be met without a shadow of doubt by the person who has brought the unreasonable litigation.

9.28 p.m.

The Attorney-General: One of my troubles with this Amendment was that until I heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite I was not quite sure what he meant. The ordinary rule is that if a claim is brought and fails, the plaintiff has to pay the defendant's costs. They do not always cover everything the defendant has had to pay, but that is the normal practice. But that is not what is in mind here at all. These cases are cases where a plaintiff has a claim against the defendant to which, in law, there is no answer. He is entitled to judgment, but the question is whether, under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, owing to the inability to pay due to war circumstances, a court ought to step in and stop him enforcing his judgment. When, therefore, I read the opening words of the Amendment:
In any proceedings which a court considers have been brought unreasonably …
a court, I think, would never say, and could never say, that the proceedings have been brought unreasonably if the plaintiff was clearly right and was entitled to judgment. Some people may resort to law a little precipitately, but we proceed on the legal basis that a man having a legal right can go to court to enforce it. The Amendment goes on to say:
Where leave to enforce a judgment has been refused …
In most cases, rather than an absolute refusal, there is a refusal subject to conditions. I was not quite sure how the Amendment would deal with that matter, but I imagine that what is really at the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind is the following. Suppose that a man, having got his judgment, then asks for leave to enforce the judgment, as he has to do under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, and it then turns out that he ought

to have known that the court would refuse leave, or would allow the judgment to be enforced only subject to conditions—for instance, the defendant makes an offer to pay by instalments—then if the plaintiff had been reasonable, he would never have troubled the court with the application to enforce the judgment. There may well be cases in which, in those circumstances, costs have been given against the plaintiff for any extra expenses incurred in making the application. However, I cannot accept this Amendment, because it is really very obscure, and I am not quite sure how far it is meant to go.
What we are looking into is this sort of point. Obviously, it is desirable that when proceedings are taken for the judgment, in those proceedings, where-ever they may be, the court or the Master should be able to deal with the defendant's inability to pay, if it exists, and say what conditions are reasonable under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, having regard to the circumstances of the defendant. It is very undesirable, if it can be avoided, that there should be one set of proceedings resulting in the judgment and then another application, with another attendance of solicitors and possibly counsel, to decide the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act point. The position under the Rules is that the plaintiff can serve a notice with his writ saying that be intends to ask for leave to enforce, and when that happens, the defendant has notice, and he can put in his affidavit, and the judge or Master can deal with the whole thing at the same time. At present that depends upon whether the plaintiff serves a notice. We did this because there are possible cases where a man may want a judgment simply to protect himself against the Statute of Limitations, or something of that sort, and, knowing the defendant and his circumstances, may not want to enforce it.
We are considering whether we could alter the Rules so as to make certain that there is, so to speak, only one bite at the cherry. I think this would to a very large extent mitigate the difficulty as to costs. I do not think it would be right to say that a person who has a legal right should have to pay to go and get his judgment. I think we should reduce the opportunity of extra costs to a minimum, and if one can get the whole thing disposed of at one hearing, a good deal will have been done


to meet this grievance. We will look into the matter on those lines, and I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I hardly thought there was as much in the Amendment as I have gathered from the Attorney-General's speech. I see now that it is a very important Amendment, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been good enough to promise to see that the Rules will be altered on the lines he has suggested, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, at the end, to add:
(4) Section one of the Principal Act shall apply to proceedings under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838.
I have put this Amendment down merely to enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us whether such an Amendment is really necessary in connection with these proceedings, and whether what is suggested here is already covered.

9.36 p.m.

The Attorney-General: No, it is not covered. This Courts (Emergency Powers) Amendment Bill deals with proceedings for possession in default of payment of rent. The whole scheme is directed to the man who is unable to pay and the Small Tenements Recovery Act does not deal with claims for possession in default of payment. Its main purpose is to provide a summary procedure for recovery of possession when the tenancy has come to an end, and not arising from non-payment of rent. The Amendment therefore would not fit into the structure of this Bill, which deals with possession in default of payment of rent and the relief Section of which directs the court to have regard to inability to pay. Of course, the position at the beginning of the last war was slightly different, in that there were no Rent Restrictions Acts. In so far as the tenements covered by this Act are dwelling houses, they, of course, come within the Rent Restrictions Act, and even at the end of the tenancy the tenant is protected against eviction subject to the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Small Tenements Act, of course, also covers small business

premises. They are not within the Rent Restrictions Act. We could not accept this Amendment within the structure of this Bill, because it is quite inappropriate, in that it has nothing to do with ability to pay. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take the matter further, it would be by way of suggestion to the Minister of Health that business premises should be included in the Rent Restrictions Acts. It is really outside the scope of this Bill, and so far as I know I have not heard of any particular demand for the alteration of the law in that respect.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Short title, construction and interpretation.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, at the end, to insert:
'armed forces of His Majesty' does not include the Local Defence Volunteers;
'hire-purchase agreement,' 'hire-purchase price,' 'owner' and 'hirer' have the meanings respectively assigned to them by Section twenty-one of the Hire Purchase Act, 1938.'
This is the first Amendment to Clause 5 and is consequential on a new Clause which also stands in my name, namely, "Provisions as to mortgages." The second Amendment is consequential on a second new Clause standing in my name, namely, "Restriction on delivery of goods." I do not know whether the Committee would be prepared to pass this Amendment now without discussion and then to allow me to give an explanation on the new Clause, or whether I should give an explanation on this first Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: I should have thought—and I am subject to the permission of the Committee—that it would be more convenient to discuss the whole matter, both the new Clauses and the Amendment, if that is the wish of the Committee.

The Attorney-General: I will explain then the Clauses and Amendments. The first new Clause deals with provisions as to mortgages. A mortgagor, a man who is perhaps building his house or purchasing his house and has a mortgage debt on it, has a form of liability which is of the utmost importance to him. If there is


foreclosure of the mortgage, or if possession is taken of the property, it may be a serious matter for him. For that reason, we thought it right to make provision in this new Clause for the protection of serving soldiers. It may appear a little drastic from the point of view of the mortgagee, but we thought it right to make such provision.
The problem has arisen in this way. Suppose a mortgagee applies for possession because there is default and asks for leave to take one of the remedies under the mortgage, which are referred to in the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. The mortgagor does not appear, and, as things are at present, it is difficult, if not impossible, for the court to do anything but give leave to the mortgagee to take his order. No inability to pay owing to war circumstances has been proved and the mortgagor is not there. That is a problem which we felt ought to be dealt with, because the mortgagor may be a soldier serving abroad. There may have been an order for what is called substituted service by post, instead of personally, which he has never received, and he may know nothing about the application. A plain injustice would be committed if an order were made by which possession was taken of the property and it was perhaps sold. The scheme of the Clause is that, if the mortgagor is absent, the court assumes that he is a serving soldier unless the mortgagee proves the contrary. That puts the onus on the mortgagee to prove that the mortgagor is not a serving soldier.
The new Clause goes further and provides that, if he is a serving soldier, or if the case proceeds on the basis that he is a serving soldier—either because he has appeared or because he is assumed to be one—the onus is placed on the mortgagee to show that there is ability to pay. We do not leave it to the serving soldier to prove inability to pay. From the point of view of mortgagees that may seem rather a tall order, and that is why we restrict this provision to the question of mortgages. It may be of vital importance because a man's savings may be imperilled unless he gets protection. Subsection (3) is necessary in cases where the mortgagor has shut up the house and gone off. He cannot be found, he is

assumed to be a serving soldier, and the mortgagee cannot get possession and exercise his remedies at that stage. It may therefore be desirable that somebody should be appointed to look after the property to prevent it falling into rack and ruin. This Sub-section enables a receiver to be appointed. Subsection (4) deals with a technical point under the Mortgage (Emergency Provisions) Act, which was intended to make it clear that proceedings could not be taken by mortgagees unless there had been default. There is some question whether that covers cases where the mortgagee seeks possession by virtue of the determining Clause.
With regard to the new Clause dealing with the restriction on delivery of goods, the principal Act says that no person shall be entitled, except with the leave of the court, to proceed to exercise any remedy available to him by way of taking possession of any property. The common case is the hire-purchase agreement. The supplier under a hire-purchase agreement cannot exercise his right to retake a gramophone or furniture unless he gets the leave of the court. That is all right, and it is clear that that covers the case where he is doing it outside court procedure. But it has been held that the words used here do not cover the case where a man gets, as part of legal proceedings, a specific order for the recovery of possession of goods. This second Clause brings that case within the scope of the Act and says that where you have a judgment entitling you to get goods, you have to apply for leave to enforce it in exactly the same way as when you get a judgment entitling you to a sum of money. It is a small point but the Clause puts it right. In the Amendments on the Order Paper we exclude from the first new Clause, dealing with mortgages, the Local Defence Volunteers. The reason is obvious—that they are employed in their own locality, and the special provisions which we have introduced are to protect serving soldiers who will be away from their homes, who may be abroad, and may not have adequate notice of proceedings being taken against them.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I do not want to criticise what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, because in my view


all what he has said ought to be done, but I think a new problem in connection with building societies and mortgages will arise very soon. The case has been put to me of ordinary working-class folk moving from dangerous areas to live in other parts of the country, and leaving their houses and furniture behind. I was asked my opinion. I am not a lawyer but I gave the best information I could. I said that in any case, if their mortgages were not paid up to date, I felt sure the courts would not exercise their power to compel them to pay their dues, while they were in some other part of the country. I am very much afraid that this may be rather a serious problem in some places because, of course, the people concerned will not be able to pay. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look into the question. I do not know whether the law, as it stands, safeguards their interests, but I thought it did and I gave information to that effect.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think everyone in the Committee welcomes these two Clauses. They will fill gaps which needed filling and will be extremely useful to protect poor people who at present are going through very difficult times, either because one of the family has gone into the Services or for other reasons due to the war. I should like to put two points to the learned Attorney-General. If I understood him aright, he said that this was a declaratory Clause, in order to remove doubt. If that is so, I should like to ask why the word "shall" appears instead of "may" in Subsection (4), line 27. Earlier in this Debate he pointed out to us very eloquently that in Clauses of this kind you must always have the word "may" instead of "shall."

The Attorney-General: No, you must have the word "may" if the original Clause can only mean "may" and cannot mean "shall." I did not mean to suggest that you could never have "shall" in a declaratory Clause.

Mr. Hall: I knew that, but I could not refrain from putting that point. Further, I should like to ask whether it is possible, in the new Clause dealing with restrictions on the delivery of goods, to tighten up the law in order to save people who have goods on hire purchase from having those goods taken, as sometimes happens, when

they are in the open? The owners of goods vary in their morality; some of them are excellent people, but others are only too willing to "get away with it" if they think they can do so by a little sharp practice. The Attorney General will know that owners of goods which have been sold on the hire-purchase principle will frequently take the goods if they find the goods in the open, in circumstances in which there can be no question of breaking or entering. Although it is illegal for them to do so, the hire-purchaser is put to a great deal of trouble, which, frequently, he cannot afford to take, in trying to get the goods back. I wondered whether by some simple procedure we could assist the ordinary working-class hire purchaser in such cases, which frequently arise in regard to motor cycles and, perhaps, poultry, and lead to great hardship. I hope the Attorney-General will look into the point and, if there is a prospect of helping people in that position, will put in a provision to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to mortgages.)

(1) Where an application is made by the mortgagee of a dwelling-house for leave to exercise in relation to the mortgage or the dwelling-house any of the rights or remedies mentioned in Subsections (2) and (3) of Section one of the principal Act, and the mortgagor is a person serving in the armed forces of His Majesty or mainly dependent on a person so serving, the appropriate court, unless it is satisfied that the mortgagor is able immediately to pay the debt or to perform the obligation in question or that his inability to do so does not arise by reason of circumstances directly or indirectly attributable to any war in which His Majesty may be engaged, may in its absolute discretion refuse leave for the exercise of that right or remedy or give leave therefor subject to such restrictions and conditions as the court thinks proper.

(2) Where at the hearing of any such application as aforesaid the mortgagor is not present or is not represented he shall, unless the contrary is proved by the applicant, be deemed for the purposes of the foregoing Subsection to be a person serving in the armed forces of His Majesty or mainly dependent on a person so serving.

(3) Rules made under the principal Act may provide that, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the rules, the leave of the appropriate court to appoint a receiver of the rents and profits of any mortgaged dwelling-house may be given on the ex-parte application of the mortgagee.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Possession of Mortgaged Land (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939 (which restricts the right of mortgagees to obtain possession of land mortgaged before the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine) applies to any right to obtain possession conferred on the mortgagee by virtue of any attornment or other provision contained in the mortgage or in any agreement collateral thereto; and accordingly the said Sub-section shall have effect and be deemed always to have effect as if after the words "obtain possession of the land" there were inserted the words "whether by virtue of his estate or interest as mortgagee or of any attornment or other provision contained in the mortgage or in any agreement collateral thereto."—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on delivery of goods.)

(1) Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act (which prevents persons proceeding without the leave of the court to execution on judgments and orders for the recovery of possession of land) shall have effect as if after the words "payment of money" there were inserted the words "or for the delivery of any property other than land by reason of a default in the payment of money."

(2) Where the appropriate court refuses leave under Sub-section (4) of Section one of the principal Act to take possession of goods let under a hire-purchase agreement or to execute any judgment or order for the delivery of such goods, or gives such leave, subject to restrictions and conditions, and the hirer, before possession is taken or the judgment or order is executed, pays the hire-purchase price, the owner's title to the goods shall, notwithstanding any failure to pay the hire-purchase price at the times required by the agreement, vest in the hirer.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of ss. (2) of s. 1, 2, and 3, Geo. 6, c. 67.)

Paragraph (a) of Subsection (2) of Section one of the principal Act shall be amended so as to add the following sub-paragraph, that is to say:
(vi) The cutting-off of any supply of electricity, gas or water."—[Vice-Admiral Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.59 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Under the original Act the tenant is safeguarded from various proceedings if taken against him without the sanction of

the court. Public utility companies have special statutory powers. They come and cut off the gas, water, electricity and telephone if they do not receive payment. They are permitted by Statute to do so. The Attorney-General seemed rather to resent my use of the word "threat" during the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, in describing the way in which that power is used. If I cannot pay my water rate or my electricity charge, some official comes to me and says: "You have not paid your electricity charge. If you do not pay me in full, I will cut off the supply of electricity." I take that as a very substantial threat. As a matter of fact, that threat is put into practice. I have before me a letter which I received yesterday from a woman living in St. Annes-on-Sea. It has nothing to do with London. It is about water, and this is what it says:
Dear Madam,
Re Water Rate £2 0s. 6d.
I find you have not kept your promise with regard to paying your water rate. Unless payment is made within the next 24 hours, the water supply to your premises will be cut off without any further warning.
I imagine that is a threat.

Sir Francis Fremantle (St. Albans): How many previous letters had she had asking for payment?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I have also a letter here dated the next day, 25th June. The previous letter was dated 24th June. This letter says:
Dear Madam,
In reply to your communication of 25th instant as to your water rate, I will arrange for the time of payment thereof to be extended to 10th July, 1940. This is, however, subject to the express condition that the rate is paid in full by the date referred to, as no further extension will be allowed.
The point is that there is a threat to cut off the supply of water.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is that from the same company?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Yes. The point is that the power places these authorities in the position of preferential creditors. People who have, over a long series of years, always met the demands for payment for gas, electricity, water and telephone, are now, as a direct result of the war—and I have particularly in mind the people about whom I have been so anxious, the keepers of apartment houses,


who have not been able to get custom—unable to meet those charges. Owing to the public utility companies having that power and using those threats, these people, who have never had to meet such a position before, become frightened. They believe that if they do not pay at once, their whole water supply will be cut off and, by hook or by crook, by borrowing or by overdraft, they do their best to pay and to meet those demands.
That is not fair, and it is all wrong. There is only one creditor, and it is not right that such power should be exercised. A landlord is not allowed to take possession of the furniture in an apartment unless he has permission of a court to do so, because it would be impossible for the house to be inhabited without the furniture. The court will not allow that to be done without an order having been made by the court. In the case of an apartment house, if the furniture were taken out, the livelihood of the tenant would go, and all the money sunk into the business would be lost. Furniture is only one of the articles necessary in order to run an apartment house. Gas, electricity and water are all necessary. Many of these places are heated by electricity; cooking is done by electricity and on gas cookers, and they also need water. How can they get on without water? All these things are just as necessary as furniture, but there is no protection whatever under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. At once, without any reference to the courts at all, the whole possibility of these people continuing their livelihood can be destroyed, and they can be put into the bankruptcy court. The principle is all wrong, and it is the principle upon which I am speaking.
I know that there is tremendous opposition in this matter, but, as a matter of fact, the gas companies have treated their consumers extremely well, According to my information, they have met them in every possible way. The electricity companies have not; they have done nothing at all, except to demand to be paid. Nothing is done as regards any new contract. Many of them have shut up a whole floor, every electricity point on that floor having been taken into account at the flat rate. I would like to see this matter altered in order that these utility companies shall not be in the position of preferential creditors. There

is no reason why they should be. Yet, as the Act stands now, they can continue in this manner. Supposing a water company was to cut off the water supply of any house during the period of this war, what would it mean? Suppose it was cut off now and in two hours' time incendiary bombs fell on that house. What would be the result? The house would inevitably be burnt, and not only that house, but it might start a conflagration over the whole town or city in which that house was situated. I would argue in all seriousness that to cut off the water supply from any house in time of war is a crime and should be prohibited. Some provision should be included in this Bill to prevent its being done, because it is a very serious matter. For the reasons which I have stated, I hope that the Clause standing in my name will be accepted and that something will be done to remove this privileged position in which these public utility companies are at the present time, and from which these people have no protection whatever.

Sir Annesley Somerville: On a point of Order. Is the Amendment to the new Clause to be discussed with the new Clause, or later?

The Chairman: The hon. Member's Amendment to the new Clause will be reached in due course. In the meantime, there is another new Clause on the Order Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). It might perhaps be convenient to discuss that on this Clause if the hon. Member approves.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I am sure that every Member would agree with the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) if he had brought forward convincing evidence that the Clause was necessary; but I have listened carefully, and, apart from one case relating to a Lancashire water authority, he has brought no evidence in support of this Clause, which he is pressing so strongly.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Member has entirely missed the point, that the threat to these people—which is the issue—forces them, by hook or by crook, to pay this liability in full. These undertakings are in a preferential position. It is because they have that power that that


is done. There are any amount of cases which could be brought up. There would be no difficulty about that.

Mr. Morrison: I do not want to fall out with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I heard his talk about a threat; but if a man refused to pay his baker, his baker would not let him have any more bread.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: He could go somewhere else.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made out his case. He made a speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, in which he said:
I know from information which I have received that gas companies have met this difficult situation in a very satisfactory manner, and have been reasonable and generous in dealing with their customers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1940; col. 498, Vol. 362.]
If that is so, why does he want to impose restrictions on the gas companies by this Clause? He says that, because they have been reasonable, generous and very satisfactory to all their customers, we are to put restrictions on them. He then refers to the action of the Post Office in cutting off people's telephones, but he does not propose to do anything about that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the gas companies have been reasonable, generous and very satisfactory in all their dealings with their customers, but not so the Metropolitan Water Board.
I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not taken the trouble to find out the facts, or he would have found that the Metropolitan Water Board is reasonable and generous and deals very satisfactorily with all its customers. I am going to prove that, if not to the satisfaction of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to the satisfaction, at any rate, of every other hon. Member. In order that he should prove his case, he should have shown that, as a result of the war, there were more people having their water cut off than before the war. I am going to prove, by the figures, that the number is something like a third of what it was before the war, so he cannot argue that this is a wartime problem which has suddenly developed. Everybody who knows anything about London's water supply knows that, out of 1,500,000 water consumers in London, there are roughly 2,000 who have conscientious objections

to paying for the water. For some reason, they think that, while all other goods should be paid for, water should be given away free. The Metropolitan Water Board, which is a public body—Labour-controlled, by the way—and which is responsible for this, although it does not make any profit, cannot afford to give water for nothing; but 2,000 consumers, before the war even, have made as much difficulty as possible about paying for water, because they do not like paying for it.
Here are the conditions that the Metropolitan Water Board lay down before they take any proceedings against any one or make, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, any threats. The standing instructions laid down by the Metropolitan Water Board are that the water supply is not to be disconnected in the following six separate classes of case:
(1), where there is extreme poverty, (2), where there is distress through unemployment, (3), where there is illness on the premises, (4), where it has not been possible to meet the consumer or a member of his household for service of the Board's letter, (5), where severance of the connecting pipe was necessary and the cost would be disproportionate to the amount of the rate, and (6),"—
and this one has been issued since the commencement of the war—
where instructions have been given that the supply must not be disconnected where the responsible ratepayer is serving with His Majesty's Forces.
I think all these cases are very reasonable, but, in addition, the Metropolitan Water Board have given instructions to their officials that water is not to be disconnected from any premises without the finance committee of the Board considering the whole of the circumstances of the case. Inquiries have to be made, and the finance committee personally has to deal with the case before the supply is cut off. The Metropolitan Water Board afford a supply to 1,500,000 premises within their area, and there are approximately 1,000,000 premises where the Board have power to cut off supply in the event of the rate being unpaid.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I apologise for interrupting again, but in all these cases that the Metropolitan Water Board are considering there is nothing done about cases of apartment-house people where they lose their means of paying and meeting these payments straight away in full.


As a direct result of the war, they are unable to pay up.

Mr. Morrison: I think that that comes under the heading of "extreme poverty."

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Oh, no.

Mr. Morrison: If they are not suffering from extreme poverty they are able to pay the water rate. It was necessary for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give some figures in order to prove harshness. For the year ending 31st March, 1938, supplies were cut off in 683 cases out of 1,500,000; for the year ending 31st March, 1939, the supplies were cut off on 1,083 premises; for the year ending 31st March, 1940, which includes six months of the war, the number comes down from 1,083 to 272; and for the last three months ending on 30th June the number of cases is 42. Therefore, I do not think that anyone can say that any harsh action is being taken by the Board as a result of anything that may have happened during the war. As regards complaints, the Ministry of Health has received one complaint since the outbreak of war. In that complaint the rate was due before the war and ought to have been paid, and the complainant, who stated to the Ministry of Health in his complaint that he was out of work, was in fact the owner of several properties with the aggregate rateable value of £264. The only other case of a complaint sent to a Government Department, to the best of our knowledge—I am speaking now on behalf of the Metropolitan Water Board, of which I am a member—is one which was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Labour. In that case it was found that the company had been in arrears of rates in previous half-years, and since the complaint the debenture holders had gone into liquidation, and the company was being ordered to be wound up. There was one further case that was brought to my notice, and there hardship was proved and arrangements were made for the rates to be paid by instalments.
It seems to me that in the case of a responsible authority like this it is somewhat unfair, without any real evidence being brought forward, that an attempt should be made to put into emergency legislation something for which no demand has been proved. It may be said

that I have confined my remarks to the Metropolitan Water Board, but I have done so because the hon. and gallant Gentleman, on the Second Reading of the Bill, went out of his way to specify the board and the hardship of their methods. It may be said that other water undertakings may not be so generous, but, apart from the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned, there has been no such evidence before the Committee, and I am sure the Committee does not want to justify the passing of legislation like this without an attempt being made to prove a case. Had there been any evidence at all that public undertakings were, as a consequence of the war, using their powers harshly in any way, I, as a member of a local authority, would be one of the very first to say that such a thing should stop. The effect of this Amendment, if passed, would be that many thousands of people occupying premises and using water in London, realising that it would be necessary for the Metropolitan Water Board to go to court to get an order, would stop paying their rates. Of the 42 cases I mentioned as having been reported to the board, there is not the slightest doubt that if it had been necessary to go to court, there would have been no difficulty in getting orders. The hon. and gallant Member should remember, before he takes up a case of this kind, that in a large number of these cases water is cut off because a house is left empty, the tenant cannot be found, and it is necessary during cold weather for somebody to get into the premises quickly to cut off the water supply.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I rise to say a word in favour of the new Clause standing in my name—"Restriction on withholding of supplies." If what the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), has said in favour of the Metropolitan Water Board is correct and true, he should have no objection to compelling every other water undertaking in the country to do likewise. I feel sure that not every public utility company is as generous as the Metropolitan Water Board, which is, I understand, largely made up of local authorities. There are some gas companies which are privately owned and which, quite frankly, I do not trust. In saying that, I am glancing at the


other side of the Committee. Let me, however, support the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) on one point. It is true that water, gas and electricity fall into an entirely different category from furniture and food. If you are not pleased with one shopkeeper, you can go to another, but there is in London, I understand, only one supply of water, and that is through the Metropolitan Water Board. You cannot go to the Manchester Corporation for water if you are displeased with the Metropolitan Water Board. I am sure the Committee knows that water, gas and electricity fall into a separate category when we discuss this subject. My new Clause is a compromise between two extremes. I never like to ruffle anybody's feelings, whether he be on the Left or on the Right. I will try to explain what my new Clause means. Whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman's new Clause may do, my Clause would at any rate prevent the cutting off of any of these services except by the permission of the court.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is what my new Clause would do.

Mr. Davies: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not quite clear that it meant that. My new Clause is a compromise in so far as it states:
Any default in the payment of a debt arising by virtue of a contract made since the passing of the principal Act.
I hope the Committee does not wish to support those people who have a conscientious objection to paying for anything. There are such people. I know of a case where a man has been in debt, not only for his gas, electricity and water, but to everybody, and he could afford to pay if he wanted. I can tell the Committee that he is not a member of the Labour party; he is a member of the other party. Therefore, I think that my new Clause may appeal to hon. Members on all sides of the Committee, and having explained what it means as effectively as I could, I hope I have now convinced hon. Members that I have made out a case for it.

10.22 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle (St. Albans): The hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) has spoken against the new Clause from the point of view of the

Metropolitan Water Board. I want to put the argument from the point of view of the water undertakings of the whole country, on behalf of the British Waterworks Association, which includes both Statutory and municipal undertakings. The question is one of hardship. I regret that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) suggested by implication that the provincial water undertakings are not generous. As a matter of fact, I have taken the precaution to find out what was the actual number of cases that had to be cut off by different water undertakings. In the case of Liverpool, a big undertaking supplying more than 1,000,000 people, no consumer had his water supply cut off. That hardly bears out the implication in the hon. Member's speech against their generosity.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I did not make an attack on any undertaking controlled by local authorities. My attack, if attack it was, was on private companies.

Sir F. Fremantle: I do not know quite what the hon. Member means by private companies. These are not private companies in the ordinary sense, but public utility undertakings, and I hope the Committee recognises that public utility undertakings cannot make money. The amount of dividend they pay is limited absolutely by the Statute allowing them to raise money. Consequently, if a public utility undertaking loses in any way, the loss has to be made up out of the water rates, and if some people do not pay their water rates, those who do pay have to make good the default of those who do not. I will give instances from my own constituency, where a small undertaking supplies 250,000 people. The actual number who did not pay last year was one in a thousand. They had to have the penalty imposed upon them of their water supply being cut off.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the people in his district have been directly hit by the war in the same way as the apartment house keepers of whom I am speaking? It makes a considerable difference.

Sir F. Fremantle: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Admiral means by "hit by the war." If he means poverty, I am sure his district is not so poor as that of Liverpool, where there was not a


single case of water being cut off, or Manchester, where the number was only 12, or Bradford and Leeds, where the number was only three. It is absurd to suggest that poor people in these other areas are badly treated by this provision.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: rose—

Sir F. Fremantle: I think we have the argument perfectly clear. There must be some definite provision to deal with people who do not intend to pay unless they are made to do so. It is exactly the same in the case of Income Tax. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Admiral does not pay his Income Tax until he receives his second notice, or perhaps it is after the third notice. It must be the same in the case of water and electricity undertakings. We find that something like 90 per cent. of the consumers do not pay until after the second or the third notice, after which the water is cut off if the amount is unpaid within seven days. There is no hardship about the provision. The only alternative suggestion to this method has been put forward by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. He suggests that these cases should be taken to the courts. But imagine any water undertaking having to take to court every person who does not pay. With 90 per cent. not paying up to time, the courts would be crowded with cases. It would be pouring money into the pockets of the legal profession.
The argument is so clear that I need take it no further. I will, however, give to the Committee, as an example, a case of a man living at Southend who refuses every year to pay his water rate until his supply has been cut off. He is in affluent circumstances, and always pays, the day after his water has been cut off, the £12 owing, plus 25s. to reconnect the supply to his house. Why he does it, heaven only knows; but it is only the threat of cutting the water off which is the moving force, and it will be so in all these cases. Where there is hardship the undertakings always treat cases most kindly, especially in the case of serving men. On behalf of all these utility undertakings, I hope the Clause will be resisted.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think that the arguments so far adduced, although extremely interesting as showing how water boards under labour control

operate, do not really help us very much in considering the actual matters before us. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) have said, that poor people are extremely good payers when it comes to meeting their water rate.
The short answer to that is that if people pay so well, why should the two hon. Gentlemen be so fearful that, if we had this protection for the serving men and other people hit by the war, everybody else would refuse to pay until an application was made to the court to cut their water off? The hon. Member for St. Albans said it would be a pity if we passed this legislation because many people paid only on threat of having their water cut off. There is a provision on the Statute Book to prevent the hon. Member having his throat cut, and although it has not happened yet, that is no reason why that provision should be repealed, leaving him to whatever chance might befall. It has to be remembered that this Bill will operate only in cases of people who have been badly hit by the war. Other people will meet their water, gas and electricity bills as they have done in the past. It is curious that the hon. Member for North Tottenham should speak as forcibly as he did. I know he spoke of what he knows to be true, but only to-day I heard of a case in Wimbledon where a woman, who has been an excellent payer through a fairly long life, and owed only a few shillings, had her house entered during her absence and the water cut off. That kind of instance occurs up and down the country and we ought to protect the people who suffer under it.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: My hon. Friend is not referring to a case within the purview of the Metropolitan Water Board?

Mr. Hall: I take it not from what my hon. Friend said, but I was assured that it was true. Gas and electricity undertakings, and in some places water undertakings, are in a different category from other concerns. They have a monopoly in their areas and in some cases they use their powers to the full. Some of us remember what happened in this area, where the electric light company has seen fit to put up its charges. Although there was a good deal of outcry about it, it died down because everybody realised that


they were in the hands of the undertaking. It has done what it likes with those of us who live in the area. Members of Parliament may be able to stand it, but I am thinking of the soldier's wife who finds herself unable to meet her gas and electricity bills. Unless we give her protection in this Measure, it will be possible for the officials of the undertakings to cut off her supplies. That is not right. We ought to protect these people if we can. We can protect them by the provisions in this Measure. It will not do undertakers who are reasonable with their consumers any harm whatever. Everyone knows that there are undertakings which are unreasonable and we ought to protect people against them.

10.36 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: The hon. Member has repeated a fundamental fallacy enunciated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). They labour under the delusion that gas and electricity supply companies have a monopoly. They have no monopoly whatever. There are alternative methods of lighting, heating, and cooking. I should be prepared to demonstrate that by far the cheapest method of cooking is neither gas nor electricity. Those undertakings labour under very severe competition. There are alternative methods of supply. No one who has spoken has pointed out that they are under statutory obligation to supply, and they are given special means of recovering their charges. If my butcher does not like the look of my face or finds my credit is bad, he refuses to supply me. It is all very well to say I can go from butcher A to butcher B, but if butcher B inquires into my credit, he may refuse to supply me. An undertaker cannot refuse, and, because he must supply, even though he has every reason to believe the applicant's credit is not good, he has this special power under the Act of cutting off supplies. There has been a convincing reply on behalf of water companies. The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself said there was no grievance against gas undertakings. An electricity supply company in these competitive days will not cut off a consumer except for paramount reasons. It is impossible to maintain a statutory

obligation to supply without giving them the protection the Act gives them.

10.39 p.m.

Sir Reginald Clarry: I hope the Attorney-General will resist the Clause. I am surprised at my hon. and gallant Friend giving himself all this trouble without the slightest evidence to justify him. On the contrary, in reference to gas undertakings, he has gone to the other extreme, and he says how satisfactorily they have done, and by way of reward he wishes to penalise them by taking away statutory powers which they have acquired by Act of Parliament for many years. I do not think he attempted to justify that at all.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: My point is the threat that is used. It is on account of the threat that people by hook or by crook pay these accounts.

Sir R. Clarry: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a very good innings. He has been on his feet 10 times in the last few hours. If you are dealing with a butcher or a baker, it is not a question of a threat. They simply do not deliver at all. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) has said, the public utility undertakers have an obligation as well as what may be apparently a monopoly. What has happened during the war, in the last nine months? There have been fewer cuttings-off than in any comparable period, but in consequence, I presume, of the harder times, the number of bad debts has gone up. I have been making inquiries from one of the largest gas undertakings in the country. Fortunately the bad debts have not been serious, but they would become serious if an Act of Parliament were passed depriving them of the opportunity of recovering and making it impossible for them to deal with their customers in the generous way to which hon. Members have paid tribute.

10.41 p.m.

The Attorney-General: We have had a well-balanced discussion and I shall advise the Committee not to accept this new Clause. Everybody has said that gas, water and electricity fall into a special compartment, and I agree, but there are one or two things which it is relevant to remember. First, the vast bulk, if not all, of these public utility statutory bodies are under the general supervision of Departments of the Crown, and there are Ministers who are responsible to this House for


them and who, if Questions are put, are prepared to look into any cases submitted. In that way the action of these public utility concerns can be raised in this House. The next important point is that these bodies are under a statutory duty to supply. If his butcher refuses to supply my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) because he has not paid his bills he goes to another butcher; but in time, of course, he would exhaust the butchers in his locality and then he would find the supply of meat dried up.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I did not use that argument in relation to gas and water.

The Attorney-General: Yes, but I am taking the two arguments together. A statutory utility undertaking is compelled to continue supplies. I think the two facts—that individual cases can be brought to the attention of this House, and that there is a statutory duty to supply, are very important in the consideration of this new Clause. The position as to gas is not under criticism. The hon. and gallant Gentleman gave the gas undertakings a good character from the outset. The position of water undertakings has been extremely well defended by the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) who gave what I thought were very striking figures of the way in which the Metropolitan Water Board, which has been singled out for attack, had been dealing with matters since the war broke out.
As far as electricity is concerned, last autumn the London Apartment Keepers Emergency Association were asked to produce cases of what they regarded as unreasonable action by electricity undertakings. They produced two, which were investigated by the Electricity Commissioners. Since then the Ministry of Transport have had no case, and the Electricity Commissioners only one. The hon. and gallant Member talks about threats. I have no doubt that if the London Apartment Keepers Emergency Association took the view that a threat was unreasonable, they would take action. They would have drawn the attention of the Ministry of Transport or the Electricity Commissioners to the matter if they had felt that unreasonable use was being made of this power. As far as electricity undertakings are concerned,

only one or two specific cases were produced last autumn when the London Emergency Apartment Keepers Association were invited to do so. I feel that there is great force in what the hon. Member for North Tottenham said, that the Committee had been asked to accept this new Clause without any real evidence in support of it.
Nobody wants oppressive use to be made of this power. All my right hon. Friends who preside over various Departments have said they were willing to consider any case in which it was thought there had been unreasonable conduct. Therefore, we cannot accept this Clause tonight; but, if evidence is brought forward, it will be looked into. If they can be dealt with administratively and so save a good many unnecessary applications to the court, so much the better. If not, the House is always free to consider the matter at a later date.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

MIDDLESEX DEEDS [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session providing for the closing for all purposes of the Middlesex Deeds Register, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of indemnities to persons suffering loss by reason of the provisions of that Act.

Resolution agreed to.

MIDDLESEX DEEDS BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Indemnification of persons suffering loss.)

(1) Any person suffering loss by reason of paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1), or by reason of Sub-section (2), of Section one of this Act, or by reason of the last preceding Section, shall be entitled, subject to the provisions or this Section, to be indemnified in respect thereof out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(2) No indemnity shall be payable under this Section in respect of any loss where the


applicant has himself caused or substantially contributed to the loss by his act, neglect or default:

Provided that the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply in relation to any failure on the part of the applicant to register a puisne mortgage under the Land Charges Act, 1925, but if—

(a) the mortgage is not registered under that Act during the twelve months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act; and
(b) the loss could have been prevented by the registration or earlier registration thereof,

no indemnity shall be payable unless there is reasonable excuse for the failure to register the mortgage in time to prevent the loss.

(3) Any indemnity under this Section may include a reasonable sum in respect of any costs or expenses properly incurred by the applicant in relation to the matter.

(4) If any question arises as to whether a person is entitled to an indemnity under this Section or as to the amount of any such indemnity, he may, subject to and in accordance with rules of court, apply in a summary manner to the High Court to have that question determined, and the Court shall have power to hear any application made under this Sub-section and to make such order thereon as seems proper.

(5) Where indemnity is paid under this Section, the Attorney-General shall be entitled, on behalf of the Crown—

(a) to recover the amount paid from any person who has caused or substantially contributed to the loss by his fraud; and
(b) to enforce any express or implied covenant or other right which the person who is indemnified would have been entitled to enforce in relation to the matter in respect of which the indemnity was paid.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Orders of the Day — INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

10.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move,

That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section one of that Act to, respectively—

(1) the urban district of Tavistock,
(2) the borough of Harwich,
(3) the urban district of Llandrindod Wells copies of which were presented to this House on 20th March;
(4) the urban district of East Barnet,
(5) the city and county of Bristol,
(6) the city and county of Lichfield,
(7) the city and county of Chester,
(8) the borough of Wokingham,
(9) the city of Leicester copies of which were presented to this House on 25th June;
(10) the borough of Banbury,
(11) the urban district of Beeston and Stapleford,
(12) the borough of Brecon,
(13) the borough of Bridgnorth,
(14) the borough of Bury St. Edmunds,
(15) the city of Canterbury,
(16) the urban district of Caterham and Warlingham,
(17) the borough of Chelmsford,
(18) the borough of Chesterfield,
(19) the urban district of Cowes,
(20) the county borough of Derby,
(21) the rural district of Dursley, (22) the urban district of East Grinstead,
(23) the urban district of Epping,
(24) the urban district of Felixstowe,
(25) the urban district of Gainsborough,
(26) the city of Lancaster,
(27) the urban district of Leatherhead,
(28) the borough of Loughborough,
(29) the borough of Ludlow,
(30) the borough of Mansfield,,
(31) the urban district of Market Drayton,
(32) the borough of Newport (Isle of Wight),
(33) the rural district of North Cotswold,
(34) the city of Nottingham,
(35) the borough of Oswestry,
(36) the city of Oxford,
(37) the borough of Pontefract,
(38) the county borough d Preston,
(39) the city of Ripon,
(40) the urban district of Shepton Mallet,
(41) the borough of Shrewsbury,
(42) the urban district of Tonbridge,
(43) the county borough of Warrington,
(44) the rural district of Wayland (parish of Watton),
(45) the urban district of Wigston,
(46) the urban district of Woking, and
(47) the city of York copies of which were presented to this House on 26th June, be approved."

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask a question on this subject? Do I understand that these Orders will be in force only during the national emergency and that they will come to an end when the war ends? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to answer that question.

Mr. Peake: No. These Orders require a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.


They are made in pursuance of the Defence Regulation which sets out the procedure under which a certificate of a competent military authority takes the place of a local poll or whatever the local procedure may be, and they will come to an end when the Defence Regulation is suspended or brought to an end after the war.

10.54 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: Do we understand that all these Orders are at the instigation of the military authority, and that in no case has the local authority asked for these Orders?

Mr. Peake: There are 47 of these Orders. My impression is that in respect of all of them they are made, under a new procedure, from a certificate of a competent military authority, but if there is any particular Order where the hon. Member would like to ask a question, I can easily give him the necessary information.

Sir J. Nall: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman by asking questions without notice. There are so many Orders on the Paper at one time under the Emergency legislation, instead of under the proper Act which ought to be pursued in the proper form, that one is rather open to the feeling that the cinema

trade may have instigated this matter without any real local demand. That is why I asked whether the military authority has asked for these without any reference to the local authority.

Mr. Peake: I think I am right in saying that all the Orders were made on the certificate of the appropriate military authorities. They only empower the licensing authorities, of course, to grant licences for Sunday entertainments; they do not, of themselves, enable cinemas to open on Sundays.

Sir J. Nall: That completely alters the case. I understand that although this Motion may be passed, the matter must still go before the appropriate licensing authorities?

Mr. Peake: That is so.

Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.